[0:13] Let's go see here. So I'm back on. Okay, we're ready whenever you are mayor. Okay, so I'll call the meeting to order or call the roll, please. Commissioner Frank O'Donnell. Here. Commissioner Rocky Smith.

[0:33] Commissioner Denise McGriff. President. Commissioner Rachel Laosna. Here. Mayor Dan Holiday.

[0:44] Oh, Mayor, did we lose you again? I think you did. Yes,

[0:55] we did hear you that time.

[0:56] All right. Something about having this window open. Anyway, I can't see my agenda. Same time. What's the next? So we're going to move to the citizen comment and we do have some citizens wanting to speak.

[1:11] So the first up would be the doca board member or chair Zach Stokes.

[1:19] My

[1:29] name is Zach Stokes, I live in Oregon City, myself and Kelly Upcase, a fellow member of the boarder here tonight, commenting on behalf of the Downtown Oregon City Association Board of Directors.

[1:41] This is in follow up to our letter to the Commission regarding diversity, equity and inclusion.

[1:47] As an organization, we're in unanimous support of the city's resolution declaring the city's stance against racism, discrimination and social injustices.

[1:56] We are concerned for the long-lasting effects the city's perception regionally will have on all our citizens and our community holistically.

[2:05] Practically speaking, we have found that the current perception of our community in the region is negatively affecting our ability to fill vacant spaces in downtown.

[2:14] We appreciate the city's efforts and will continue to strive to make downtown Oregon city welcoming to all races, genders, age groups, sexual orientations and ability levels.

[2:25] I appreciate the ability to comment tonight, and for all of the city's efforts over the last several months.

[2:31] Thank you.

[2:32] Thank you.

[2:33] Thank you.

[2:34] Thank you, sir.

[2:37] So we have Victoria Ming from the Chamber of Commerce.

[2:45] Thank you.

[2:46] And Victoria has passed out a letter, and I'll email that to you after the meeting.

[2:59] Good evening, commission.

[3:01] My name is Victoria Mineg.

[3:03] I am a resident of Oregon City, and I am the CEO of the Oregon City Chamber of Commerce.

[3:07] We appreciate this chance to respond to voice and official position on the current events pertaining to our city and the mayor.

[3:17] The mission of the Chamber of Commerce is to work together to build a vibrant economy and to enhance the quality of life for the Oregon City community.

[3:25] As we stated in our June 2nd newsletter, we the Oregon City Chamber of Commerce stand against racism, inequality, and discrimination of any kind.

[3:33] And we believe violence is never the solution, but that we should pay attention.

[3:38] We believe we must confront the uncomfortable truth of systematic inequality and as leaders

[3:44] we can work toward an equitable future.

[3:46] After all, we're in this together.

[3:49] The Oregon City Chamber of Commerce Board and the Government and Economic Affairs Committee

[3:53] has voted on a resolution regarding the actions of the mayor.

[3:57] Whereas on June 17th, the Oregon City Commission formally censured mayor Dan Holliday regarding

[4:03] several of his recent actions, including but not limited to one, preventing the commissioners

[4:09] from speaking at a public meeting regarding matters of critical local and national importance.

[4:15] Two, his public remarks to machine the struggles and experiences of people of color within the

[4:20] community.

[4:21] Whereas the commission also directed city staff to arrange for an independent investigation

[4:25] of other recent activities and behaviors of the mayor,

[4:29] whereas the mayor's recent actions have damaged the governmental

[4:32] and economic reputation of Oregon City

[4:35] to the detriment of our business community and economic development.

[4:39] And whereas the chamber has resolved to take a public position

[4:43] on the actions of the mayor.

[4:46] Now therefore, it is here by result that the Oregon City Chamber

[4:50] of Commerce expressed a serious concern that the mayor's

[4:53] recent comments and activities have put in jeopardy the Chamber's mission that supports

[4:57] are working together to build a vibrant economy.

[5:00] And enhance the quality of life for the Oregon City community. Specifically, the Mayor's actions endanger the ability of the Oregon City Chamber to help build a strong economy in Oregon City to promote Oregon City as a destination and a place to do business. The Chamber fully supports the City Commission's censure of Mayor Dan Holliday. The Chamber further supports the Commission's independent investigation into the Mayor's activities. The Chamber recommends the Commission consider an amendment to the charter to allow for a fine.

[5:29] suspension or possible expulsion. This resolution was approved and adopted by

[5:35] the vote of the Oregon City Chamber of Commerce Board and the government and

[5:38] economic affairs committee the 22nd day of June 2020. Thank you. Thank you. Thank

[5:46] you. Thank you, ma'am. Is there anybody else, Kate? Yeah, we've got Derek

[5:49] Metson and after Derek we've got Bob LaSalle and we have just a couple more.

[5:54] All right.

[5:56] All right.

[5:57] Hello.

[5:59] Thank you.

[5:59] My name is Eric Mezzan.

[6:01] For those of you I haven't met.

[6:03] I've served on several boards and committees at the city and county level.

[6:10] I've been solicited for my opinion professionally.

[6:12] I give it to you on solicited today.

[6:14] I was surprised

[6:18] to discover the emergency council meeting that was held to discuss

[6:22] or hall-based comments, reading through that and then watching the meeting online.

[6:28] I have to say I did not find anything largely objectionable about his comments.

[6:37] I believe that the conversation needs to be had, that the State of Oregon is not evaluating the writing and protests with the same level scrutiny as it comes to personal protection and distancing as they are other people and citizens today

[6:57] deserves a discussion.

[6:58] I also don't think it's wrong to ask people to fact check themselves if anything he was calling

[7:04] that gentleman out is having his facts unaccurately low, but certainly we should question the facts

[7:12] when they come to us and I do not believe Mayor Hall they was elected to just believe everything he hears but he was

[7:20] elected to ask questions and make difficult decisions at different times such as these. I believe he stands

[7:26] with the people. I do not believe he's inherently racist. I look at the makeup of the city's staff,

[7:33] leadership, and the elected body, and I don't see that we live in inherently bigoted community.

[7:45] The objections to the mayor's comments can only be considered a suppression of speech,

[7:50] and there's too much of that going on right now. This is a time for a dialogue where we need to be talking

[7:55] to each other about the issues. And I've heard Murray rings from a number of people who are not bigoted,

[8:00] who are not racist, who don't rent, but have real concerns about losing their jobs or being

[8:06] shamed by people they know and consider friends because they want to have a dialogue about the

[8:11] pains and issues in our community. Now, certainly, we've all seen racism. It is bad. No one stands

[8:18] behind. I don't think anyone in this room does. We've heard a number of comments about that,

[8:21] but we need to talk about the issue. Everybody.

[8:25] money.

[8:28] Thank you.

[8:31] So could we have Bob?

[8:32] Sal, please.

[8:53] I'm sorry. What was that? No jokes.

[8:56] No jokes. No jokes. No jokes.

[9:00] Bob, it'll be

[9:01] help Bob. You need to pull your mic down so it's closer to your

[9:05] mouth. It'll make it easier. Pull this down.

[9:08] Pull this? Yeah. Just pull it down. There you go.

[9:10] Okay. Okay. How's that? Thank you.

[9:14] This

[9:19] is Bob LaSalle, and I live in Oregon City, in 2014 I ran

[9:28] against the Mayor

[9:32] of Former

[9:33] City Commissioner.

[9:41] The people must have known something, then even though you outspoken.

[9:48] At that time, you received endorsements from Mick former mayor's, public personalities,

[9:53] unions, and many others.

[10:00] Politics as a blood sport. Now, some of those same people who endorsed you before are calling

[10:08] for your resignation. On April 5, 2017, a mere two years into your first term, they had

[10:16] an article printed in the Oregon City News that stated facts of the enormous mistakes

[10:21] you were making as the mayor of Oregon City at that time and asked for your resignation

[10:27] them. So those things were walking out of meetings, fits of rage, insulting city,

[10:36] being

[10:37] rude to citizens and public officials in public, and other countless issues with

[10:46] the boy scouts.

[10:56] This city has stated the

[11:04] rest of the commission and anything you're trying to accomplish between

[11:07] now and the end of your term will be eyed with suspicion and not likely to be accepted.

[11:14] I

[11:23] refer to your service in the United States Army as a commissioned officer and leader

[11:28] for 24 years in that American institution.

[11:31] I'm saddened every time you make that association.

[11:43] I live in the city for the time and money and...

[11:53] And the last one under citizen comment is Adam Morrell.

[12:09] Members of the City Commission for the record, my name is Adam Morrell and I'm a resident

[12:13] of Oregon City.

[12:14] It's been a few weeks since I've seen you all.

[12:16] In the time that's elapsed between June 17th and today,

[12:20] a few notable events have happened concerning the recall of Dan Holiday.

[12:24] First, the committee to recall Dan Holiday officially formed

[12:28] composed of a grassroots team of experienced campaigners.

[12:32] Second, the committee filed a formal petition to recall the mayor.

[12:36] And third, signature gathering has begun and is ahead of schedule.

[12:40] I was asked to be the campaign manager for this effort

[12:42] and agreed, knowing full well that this would take the place

[12:45] of a paid summer job. For a broke college student, that was a big decision. And that's how much

[12:51] I care about bringing ethical leadership back to the mayor's office. And I'm not alone.

[12:56] We already have nearly 100 activated campaign volunteers from all walks of life.

[13:02] I've personally spoken with many of them and it's clear we have a dedicated,

[13:06] informed and powerful volunteer force behind us. And while we are still ramping up our signature

[13:12] gathering efforts only one week in we have collected approximately 400 signatures well over our weekly

[13:19] goal and double what we needed during our first week. While the COVID-19 pandemic is not an ideal

[13:25] time to lead a campaign such as this the momentum and the community is on our side but more importantly

[13:32] history will be on our side. A week from today on July 8th we will be holding our official kickoff

[13:38] rally at 6.30 p.m. in the Willamette Falls media center parking lot with former mayor's

[13:43] nearly Norris and Williams slated to speak. You are all invited to attend. The rally

[13:49] will be socially distanced, and we are offering drive-through signing stations so people don't

[13:54] even have to leave the comfort of their own car to sign. Recalls are divisive, and I do

[13:59] not take the gravity of this moment lightly. Indeed, it would be easier to wait until the end

[14:04] of the mayor's term to restore ethics and accountability to the mayor's seat.

[14:09] But democracy is never easy, and it will always fail if the people are unwilling to stand

[14:15] up and speak out for good government.

[14:18] About a month ago, Mayor Holiday resided the famous quote from Benjamin Franklin describing

[14:22] the government that the framers had dissettled upon, a republic, if you can keep it.

[14:28] The actions that the recall campaign are taking is the very manifestation of this timely sentiment.

[14:33] It is not too late for him to resign and avoid further damaging this city, but I realize

[14:38] that course of action is unlikely.

[14:41] City commissioners, please do the right thing and move to take a vote of no confidence

[14:46] in this man.

[14:47] Mayor Holiday, please do the right thing and resign.

[14:51] I invite the public to join the Recall Campaign at RecallDNHoliday.com and on Facebook under

[14:56] the handle at OC RecallDNHoliday.

[14:58] We are in.

[15:00] Committee, nonpartisan grassroots campaign, with supporters and donors from across the political spectrum. Commissioners, I plan to be back at your next regular meeting to keep you updated on our progress. Thank you.

[15:13] Thank you. Thank you. So that's all the citizen comments. We have adoption of the agenda next.

[15:23] Mr. Mayor, we'd like to go ahead. Mr. Don, please, I'll defer to Commissioner Lau Smith, I believe.

[15:32] Thank you. We'd like to request that we add an agenda item. We'd like to provide an update on the investigation of the mayor.

[15:43] We'd like to read the censure letter and any other related discussion for this topic.

[15:54] We're going to start that now.

[15:56] I guess I will start with an update on the investigation that the City Commission requested at our last meeting.

[16:07] We have determined and selected an investigator to begin that work.

[16:14] It will likely begin next week, and so we mainly just wanted to give an update

[16:18] to let folks know that, yes, that was moving forward.

[16:22] And it will start as soon as we can get that process underway.

[16:35] I would like to read that letter at this time, it will go into the public record.

[16:44] And then I'm not sure if there was consensus on all the things that was going to happen with the letter after that.

[16:50] We responded to you, Mr. Concold, do you know?

[16:53] Yes, there was a request to post it on the website.

[16:59] Distributed via social media, distributed via press release.

[17:04] Thank you, Mr. Gonkel.

[17:05] And part of the reason I wanted to address that as well because I have had a few folks ask me what was going to happen with the letter.

[17:12] And the City Commission did not provide direction at our last meeting when we did talk about the letter.

[17:18] it was a big night. I think we were ready to end that meeting and end the conversation and we needed to provide an update. So that is what will happen with this letter.

[17:29] And I have the letter in front of me that all of the commissioners, we need a couple more signatures. They weren't here for COVID.

[17:35] So therefore we will still get signatures. But I know all of the commissioners have agreed to this letter.

[17:42] The letters dated July 1, 2020, Mayor Holiday.

[17:47] The City Commission is the governing body of the City of Oregon City, and the proper functioning

[17:51] of this body is critical for the City to achieve its goals and make the City a better place

[17:56] to live for all.

[17:58] The City Commissioners, including the Mayor of Oregon City, are civic leaders who must remain

[18:03] above reproach and avoid injuring the good name of the City, disturbing its well-being and

[18:08] hampering its work.

[18:09] Mayor Holiday, it is apparent to this commission that you have taken the following actions that are contrary to the interest of the proper functioning of the City Commission and bring the name of the City and to public reproach.

[18:21] At the June 3, 2020 City Commission meeting, you violated the city's rules of procedure by directing the audio visual technician to immediately stop the meeting audio and video feed when you adjourn the commission meeting.

[18:34] A parent planned effort on your part to exclude additional comments to be made by commissioners

[18:39] on the murder of George Floyd, a matter of local, state, and national importance, and by

[18:45] refusing to recognize commissioners entitled to the floor consistent with the adopted commission

[18:49] agenda.

[18:51] You have made comments on social media and other outlets, and you took actions, including

[18:55] meeting with mayors throughout the region, promoting the reopening of Oregon City and defiance

[19:00] of the emergency orders of the state of Oregon in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic.

[19:06] Your actions resulted in a letter from the Oregon Attorney General reminding you of the

[19:11] need for the state's response to protect its citizens and the authority to do so. Your actions

[19:16] led to concern and confusion in the community for which the city commission held an emergency

[19:22] meeting to clarify that citizens and businesses should not violate the governor's executive orders.

[19:28] Your actions would have potentially endangered the lives of our citizens and potentially exposed

[19:34] businesses that followed your recommendations to criminal and civil penalties.

[19:40] You have made comments on social media regarding the death of black citizens and police encounters

[19:44] and about the subject of racial injustice, downplaying the significance of the events and the concerns

[19:50] about racial injustice.

[19:52] You were the only mayor in the region who refused to sign the June 4 2020 letter from the Metropolitan

[19:57] call it in Mayors Consortium regarding the death.

[20:00] George Floyd. The letter from the consortium signed by the region's 25 other mayors included an acknowledgement that no community is immune to systemic and historic patterns of racial injustice. The letter committed the cities to listening and advancing meaningful reforms and that supported the right of citizens to peacefully protest. These actions have cast a shadow on the good name of the city of Oregon City. You have solicited money from local businesses for a firework show in Oregon City that would be

[20:29] contrary to the state emergency orders related to COVID-19 with complete disregard to the

[20:35] commission's actions at the previous emergency meeting, where you're agreed to uphold the

[20:39] governor's stay-home-stave lives executive order.

[20:43] Additionally, you may have violated Oregon ethics laws and criminal statutes related to

[20:48] official misconduct with your decision to unilaterally collect private funds for a firework

[20:53] show without the knowledge or consent of the commission, knowing that a firework show would

[20:58] have potentially risked the health and safety of our community.

[21:02] In response to the concerns that the commission have about your actions, the city manager has

[21:07] been authorized by this commission to hire an outside firm to conduct an investigation

[21:12] into the allegations regarding your actions related to a promoting the reopening of Oregon

[21:19] city and defiance of the emergency orders of the state of Oregon and be raising funds

[21:24] to stage a fireworks event and defiance of the emergency orders of the State of Oregon

[21:28] without the consent or participation of the rest of the commission.

[21:33] The results of this investigation shall be brought back to the City Commission and

[21:36] upon requests be made available to outside agencies for potential further action.

[21:42] Based on your actions as outlined above and as discussed and voted on by the Oregon City

[21:46] Commission on June 17, 2020, you are hereby censured by the City Commission of Oregon City

[21:52] taken actions that injured the good name of the City of Oregon City,

[21:56] disturbed its well-being, and hampered its work.

[21:59] Signed by Rachel Laosmith, commission president,

[22:02] Frago Donnell, commissioner Denise C. McGruth,

[22:06] commissioner and Rocky Smith, junior commissioner.

[22:11] Thank you.

[22:12] Let us all my comments.

[22:13] I think Commissioner Donnell, did you have anything further?

[22:19] I believe in view of the number of letters we're getting

[22:23] from people like the Chamber of Commerce

[22:25] the Downtown Oregon City Association, the fact that three of four mayors, and I want to complement

[22:31] Mayor Alice Norris, Mayor Doug Crowt, former Mayor Doug Neilly, former Mayor John Williams,

[22:38] members of the school board who have individually written to us, prominent citizens.

[22:44] And I'm very complimentary to Mr. Larry Didway who spoke as a citizen, not as an official position.

[22:51] I thought it was a very sincere letter, and many students have set forth, I saw Mr. Adam

[23:00] Marl just sit before us and ask this commission to consider a vote of no confidence.

[23:05] And there is, I mean, one must certainly consider and view of all the disruption we've got.

[23:10] Can the mayor continue to effectively lead the city?

[23:13] So I would open that for discussion among my fellow commissioners and we can decide if we

[23:19] want to pursue a vote of no confidence or not. Thank you.

[23:26] Commissioner Smith, you have your hand raised?

[23:29] Yes. I want to add to Commissioner McDonald's comments. You know, we have received many, many letters,

[23:41] many comments from citizens and I do appreciate them all. I do appreciate Derek's comments tonight,

[23:47] However, listening to that letter shows this is not just about a couple comments. This is not just about a couple posts. There is a track record here and a lot of actions taken by the mayor that have not been really addressed by the mayor in any responsible way.

[24:09] That worries me and it worries me because there's been no acknowledgement that he really

[24:16] has made any mistakes or has harmed the city from his own viewpoint and the

[24:32] way that

[24:33] this is

[24:35] it's one thing to

[24:44] or time but then see

[24:49] community to hear from the chamber and

[24:52] Doca, both that say this is now affecting businesses in this town, to get a letter from the OCE.

[25:02] And all the other people that Commissioner Donald spoke out about and mentioned, but also our state representative, Mark Meak, also saying the same thing. Our mayor is representing us of the city on many, many regional committees. All of them.

[25:29] on a lot of regional aspects, and the truth is, can we really feel

[25:42] confident in him representing

[25:46] this city when he has not shown any effort to do so? In fact, even violating his own votes

[25:53] by supporting the letter, our response to the letter, the attorney general, and enforcing

[26:02] and keeping with the state guidelines, the mayor voted for that, but then continued

[26:07] to take action away from that, you know, it's at a point now where we have lost confidence

[26:18] and at least I have as a commissioner and I know others feel the same way.

[26:22] And if the mayor would apologize, if the mayor would acknowledge that he has harmed the city, if the mayor would resign, all of that would go away.

[26:37] But right now, we only have going forward in the next two years unless there's actually a recall that happens to try to make progress in this city with a mayor that we don't trust.

[26:53] And I find that to be a very difficult situation to be in.

[27:07] We don't.

[27:08] I have a parliamentary question.

[27:13] Is this the proper place if we, for the reasons stated beforehand by both myself, members of the community, people with solicits and submitted letters.

[27:23] Mr. Rocky Smith's statements is this the proper place to make a motion of no confidence in

[27:31] the mayor?

[27:32] Have a boat of no confidence in this correct place?

[27:36] Well, you certainly can do that.

[27:38] I thought we were talking about having an investigator instead of convicting me before

[27:45] you've got all the facts, but you certainly have the ability to do whatever you wish.

[27:51] We're not trying to convict you, that investigation will be ongoing on the basis of what Commissioner

[27:56] Smith and I have said and letters in the community.

[27:59] The question is does the community, do we have the confidence that you can continue

[28:05] in your duties as the mayor?

[28:07] So I would call for a vote of no confidence.

[28:10] The

[28:15] second is that a motion.

[28:16] It is a motion.

[28:17] It would need a second.

[28:17] It would be considered a main motion.

[28:19] I'll second it for discussion.

[28:23] It's been moved by Frank O'Donnell, Commissioner O'Donnell, second in by Commissioner McGriff.

[28:31] Any discussion?

[28:36] It might be helpful to clarify what a vote and favor and a vote against would be.

[28:40] The motion is for a vote of no confidence.

[28:44] So a vote in favor would mean that the commission has lost confidence in the mayor.

[28:48] A vote against would be that the commission retains confidence in the mayor moving forward.

[28:57] Understood.

[28:57] Yeah, I think the only comment I do want to make is to address the public comment from

[29:05] Mr. Metson.

[29:07] I thought that he made a really smart and comment and I appreciated your comment.

[29:16] I agree with you.

[29:18] We haven't had the conversations about racial injustices in our community.

[29:23] we haven't had conversations about how the executive order is being implemented throughout

[29:29] the state of Oregon.

[29:31] I agree with you that those are conversations that should be had, but the role of this

[29:37] body is to discuss policy, and if at any time the mayor wanted to bring any of those policies

[29:44] to this commission, I would have happily had those conversations, and we could have had those

[29:48] conversations as a body and made some policy decisions where they're not we

[29:52] wanted to send a letter to the governor saying we were unhappy with the

[29:57] inequitable application of the COVID-19

[30:05] I just want you to know that I appreciate your comment, and I agree with you, and I think there are a lot of really important conversations that need to happen in our community and amongst our staff about what's going on. And we can make steps forward. And so I just wanted to lead with that. And to clarify what's happening on this commission. I think if you listen to this,

[30:29] essential letter and stuff like that, these actions are not about those conversations

[30:35] not happening.

[30:36] These actions are about the actions of the mayor and the actions that the mayor has

[30:40] taken as an individual and representing himself independently as representing the city commission.

[30:47] So those are my personal opinions.

[30:50] Thank you for your public comment.

[30:52] I think you mentioned good things and we should be having a different dialogue, hopefully

[30:58] on another day, and I would have welcomed those conversations any time in the last couple

[31:02] of months, but they did not happen.

[31:05] May I add something to your comment, please?

[31:07] Sure.

[31:07] Mr. Mayor May I add something to Rachel's Milo's Commissioner Slyles Smith comment.

[31:12] Commissioner McGrath.

[31:13] Yes, I wanted to also thank you, Derek, and the face of maybe seeming like your comments

[31:19] were in opposition to people they are not in opposition.

[31:21] I will tell you that members of this community have already reached out to me personally.

[31:26] We have started individually and in some small groups having those conversations that you're asking about, not particularly about the COVID-19, but about the issue of people of color and what's going on with those folks in this community, if there's any issues that have come up so those things have already happened and I will say that members of the community that have reached out to me personally, I appreciate it and I'm willing to have a conversation with just about anybody with regard to those topics.

[31:57] It's not an easy conversation to have, but I think people are understanding what is going on.

[32:06] Some of the people that have reached out to me know me quite well.

[32:09] Two people who have reached out to me don't know me very well at all, but we are neighbors.

[32:14] And called me personally to ask me if I would sit down with them, which I have done.

[32:19] We plan on having other conversations.

[32:21] I have had conversations with members of the, uh, individually with members of the Chamber, members of the, of DOKA, which I represent the city on that board.

[32:30] So those conversations are happening maybe not in a way that would be a large group, but they are happening on a smaller group.

[32:36] So I do want you know that they are happening.

[32:39] I don't feel like I'm being singled out, but I think people truly want to, they're not interested in understanding what my experience is.

[32:46] because they're interested in understanding how we can do better in our community, whether

[32:52] something has happened to someone or not.

[32:55] So feel free, as we know each other, if you would like to have a conversation, I'm more

[33:00] than happy to do that.

[33:01] I agree with Commissioner Lyle Smith that we can have a conversation.

[33:05] We hope at some time where we can get a few more people in the room that we should have those

[33:08] conversations.

[33:09] So I think it's important.

[33:10] We all live here.

[33:11] We all care about this place.

[33:13] If there are some issues, as some of the students pointed out, one of the students testified,

[33:20] it brought me to tears because I have not experienced that in my schooling when I was growing up.

[33:25] But if people are experiencing that now, I'm concerned about that.

[33:28] So I just want to thank you for that.

[33:44] Take a vote of no confidence, I would recommend that that be added to the press release

[33:50] and to all the other documents that would be sent out with the sential letter.

[34:01] And there's no problem with that.

[34:02] specific

[34:07] motion or is that included in the motion?

[34:12] No.

[34:12] It's included in the motion if the

[34:16] says it's okay.

[34:18] I'm okay with it.

[34:19] I agree with you.

[34:25] Commissioner Rachel Lasneth.

[34:27] Aye.

[34:27] Commissioner Frank O'Donnell.

[34:30] Aye.

[34:31] Commissioner Rocky Smith.

[34:34] Commissioner Denise McGriff.

[34:36] Aye.

[34:37] Mayor Dan Holliday.

[34:39] No.

[34:40] Is

[34:48] it a motion about the mayor and whether it had no confidence?

[34:52] And technically, he probably should not have been allowed to vote on it.

[34:55] Yeah, Robert's rules of order says that they cannot vote.

[35:00] I think it would be approved for to nothing. Okay.

[35:06] My vote and abstain.

[35:10] Do we need to have a second roll call or vote or were good? No, I believe the votes were good. All right. Move it on. What's next, Mr. Riggs? We have a general business item 7a. It is the first reading of ordinance number 20-1008, amending chapter 2.30 of the ordinance.

[35:34] The Oregon City Municipal Code, it's the Citizen Involvement Committee, and we'll turn it to Laura Terwey.

[35:41] Thank you very much.

[35:42] Chapter 2.30 of the Oregon City Municipal Code codifies our Citizen Involvement Committee.

[35:48] The CIC members have got together and identified a series of amendments to that code.

[35:55] The Commission discussed those codes the last hearing on June 17th, and instructed staff to come back with those changes.

[36:02] changes. The changes are before you tonight. I also want to acknowledge that we did receive

[36:07] a comment from Mr. William Gifford who looks like he's on the line. With that, I'm here

[36:12] to answer any questions. And so is our CIC chair, Bob LaSalle.

[36:19] Go ahead and improve Mr. Gifford.

[36:29] Okay, William Gifford, I have you unmuted and it's your turn to speak. You have up to three

[36:34] minutes if you could begin by stating your first and last name and city of residency for

[36:38] the record.

[36:44] I hope that by now the commission has received a couple of documents that I submitted

[36:51] to the city recorder. One of them is

[36:59] to the ordinance and another take on what I think could

[37:04] be done to assist the CIC. So those of you who may not know

[37:12] association and the CIC having served

[37:15] of the CIC Secretaries, Neighborhood Association Chair and Land Use Chair and

[37:23] a lot of political

[37:25] working to get neighborhood associations reactivated and so on.

[37:29] So I consider myself pretty well versed in the workings of those associations.

[37:37] I consider that to the code I think are probably not in the best interest of things.

[37:46] I mentioned particularly the idea of giving each neighborhood in

[37:55] my argumentation.

[37:56] I think that the only people with associations that,

[38:02] if the intent of this is to increase

[38:04] participation, I don't see that this is doing it, and I hope that you read the rest of my

[38:10] arguments in there, but I won't take your time to reiterate, but I've

[38:20] given this a lot

[38:21] of thought.

[38:24] It should be one neighborhood that gets one vote,

[38:33] way too many disadvantages.

[38:34] Just more

[38:37] minor point is the whole idea of the reason why a neighborhood association

[38:46] nominee would not be appointed in my experience.

[38:51] There's only been one time that that's ever happened, and that was because the applicant

[38:55] was currently.

[38:56] And

[38:59] why the neighborhood associations

[39:12] like that would be the

[39:24] changes are more to the point

[39:27] of

[39:27] of the neighborhoods of

[39:30] the line on center lines of streets,

[39:33] which is not the most effective way

[39:35] because it puts neighbors from neighbors

[39:37] on opposite sides of the streets may very well be

[39:40] and many of them are in different neighborhood associations.

[39:44] And I gave an example of that.

[39:46] And I think that that could easily be re-aligned

[39:49] by using addresses rather than a center line of streets.

[39:55] Also, those boundaries are not an alignment

[39:58] with police department boundaries.

[40:00] The police are allocated by a number of incidents and resources and they do not exactly match back to a neighborhood association.

[40:12] There are multiple neighborhoods in one police district. It doesn't map back very well. I don't know why the, there was boundaries can't be. The reason why is because the reports that are given by the police to the neighborhood associations for

[40:36] purposes.

[40:40] It's not actionable data.

[40:41] the information that's given has no trend lines,

[40:45] it has no context, you don't know if number

[40:50] is on the rise

[40:51] or on the decline.

[40:56] I think that I'm trying to keep this under the

[40:59] much

[41:00] and I hope that the city commission has taken the opportunity

[41:04] to read my, to read

[41:09] and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[41:11] Thank you, sir.

[41:16] And then, Bob LaSalle, I believe, would like to speak.

[41:21] Did you want to speak, Bob?

[41:23] So I'll come out mystery

[41:35] medications from mr. Griffin and I want to make it clear about the

[41:40] two

[41:42] votes per neighborhood

[41:44] Have been

[41:47] Almost unanimously obtain

[41:51] a word associations

[41:52] It

[41:55] was brought up in the CIC

[41:59] obvious that the CIC members themselves

[42:02] themselves.

[42:06] What's per neighborhood

[42:17] is not a point

[42:25] outcome of that would be that the

[42:27] neighborhoods would not again turn right around and select another representative who had

[42:36] the same

[42:39] qualifications that the mayor had in the previous one. So it was just be notified

[42:45] in the neighborhood why the appointment was not approved and then they can go ahead get

[42:52] somebody else in there that would be more,

[42:57] I mean, the opinion of the mayor.

[43:02] One of the boundaries is that that would be the thing about how to

[43:25] Mr. Griffin,

[43:26] since I became chair of the CIC,

[43:33] interested in coming and joining us again as a member.

[43:37] Of course, he'd have to be selected by his neighbors. But he offered of

[43:45] the CIC a huge amount of

[43:47] knowledge,

[43:52] to help the CIC get where it was,

[43:59] reaching out to him, he refused.

[44:04] One of the reasons he gave was that he disagreed with the two members per

[44:11] neighbor association as he spoke of this evening.

[44:20] I'm going to about this if he wants to change.

[44:41] Nope, that's it.

[44:44] And what's the pleasure of the commission?

[44:47] I'd like to move with the first reading.

[44:49] I'll second.

[44:51] second.

[44:52] Second.

[44:53] Further discussion?

[45:00] Well, first, the reading, ordinance number 20-1008, an ordinance of the city, Oregon City, and many in chapter 2.3 over the Oregon City Municipal Code, citizen involvement committee.

[45:12] Commissioner Rachel Laosmith, aye. Commissioner Franco-Donnell. Aye. Commissioner Rocky Smith. Aye. Commissioner Denise McGriff. Aye. Mayor Dan Holliday. Aye. Mayor Holliday, may I make a suggestion?

[45:31] The suggestion to the community development director about

[45:36] what this just the suggestion about the street thing might be something to look into.

[45:41] I didn't realize some of the neighborhood boundaries split a street with people on either side of the street.

[45:47] I don't think we have that situation in McLaughlin.

[45:49] It clearly goes around for geographic boundary in terms of features but not any streets.

[45:55] I don't maybe that's something that's applicable to other neighborhoods.

[45:58] just maybe take a quick look at it, see if there's any of that going on.

[46:02] I understand what you're saying, but, be honest, that's a lot of work, or...

[46:12] I didn't say to you that I just sit and look at it, see if there's any streets that are split. I don't know if there are.

[46:17] I'm not comfortable with asking community development to take on more work right now, given the other stuff they're doing.

[46:24] No,

[46:29] we can have good.

[46:38] It was a discussion about motion.

[46:40] Oh, sorry.

[46:41] No, it was not a motion on that.

[46:43] It was just a suggestion to say if there are any, maybe there is.

[46:46] I don't know.

[46:50] Okay, the next agenda item is General Business Item 7B.

[46:55] That is the Willamette Falls Legacy Project and Willamette Falls Trust Grant Agreement.

[47:00] And again, it's Director Laura Turway.

[47:03] Thank you very much.

[47:04] The Willamette Falls Legacy Project includes four project partners.

[47:08] Oregon City, Clackamas County, Metro, and the state, those partners together formed a non-profit in 2015, now known as the Lamont Falls Trust.

[47:17] A grant agreement is before you tonight, which is a continuation of a previous agreement, as well as the addition of additional acknowledgement of activities that the trust is already performing on behalf of the partners.

[47:32] This agreement is good for one year and includes an opportunity to extend for an additional year.

[47:39] Highlights of the agreement include community engagement.

[47:42] The trust has been giving two tours of the site and also doing donor prospecting and other activities.

[47:49] Fundraising so far they've raised more than $7 million for the project to date and the agreement pledges another $5.9 million.

[47:59] attendance at meetings, they attend our regular staff meetings regarding the project, design

[48:05] input. This one is new. We felt that it was important that we have someone at the table

[48:11] to represent programming and interpretation opportunities to make sure that when we identify

[48:17] phase one and get down into the details of design that we're not precluding future opportunities.

[48:22] and also working with affected tribes to understand how they can be included into the project as well.

[48:31] Another item that is new to this agreement, that was in the last agreement,

[48:35] includes defining expectations for world-class programming.

[48:40] We've heard from the community ideas of what they would like to have on site,

[48:43] and we need to further define what that means, what is world-class programming.

[48:48] Under the direction of the partners, the trust has already been leading this initial planning effort.

[48:55] This effort also includes identifying potentially design requirements, approaches and recommendations for curating narratives.

[49:04] It does not include details of implementation like we have been talking about.

[49:11] I recognize that it is we're having two parallel conversations at the same time with the commission. One about

[49:18] Details of who and how we implement programming in the few years that we get there

[49:24] And then this other one which is a high-level conversation about what is programming on site

[49:31] Disagreement identifies $50,000 a year. It includes $50,000 for

[49:35] or the year that just ended, as well as this one moving forward in them potentially another one if it's extended a year.

[49:42] Andrew Mason, which is the Executive Director of Law and FALL's Trust, is on the line as well as, yeah, and we're here to answer any questions.

[49:53] Mr. Mason,

[49:57] you there.

[50:02] Okay, offering more background. I'm prepared to answer whatever questions you may have. I don't know, yeah,

[50:11] commission. Yes, please, Mr. Mayor.

[50:19] Mr. Chairway, thank you for clarifying these specific changes. I'm glad that I picked up on all of those. And I just wanted to make, I understand from your statements that we have a parallel discussion as you stated. So we had a discussion previously about who would

[50:37] implement the programming. This is basically still in the discussion stage about the programming

[50:44] in general, but as you said, as a very high level, but it is not in any way engaging into a contract

[50:49] by which we select someone or an entity to manage the programming. Whatever that is going to be.

[50:55] That is correct. Okay. Thank you.

[51:05] My questions are along the same lines. First of all, I want to ask

[51:11] There is a funding gap currently in terms of the river walk construction, correct?

[51:20] Yes.

[51:21] And it's like 17 million or something.

[51:26] Well, we have an identified what phase one is at the moment, but that's a funding gap.

[51:32] So, and then there is a chance, the possible chance with COVID and other situations at the state level that in the future,

[51:41] or some of that funding might be, could change.

[51:48] Yes, we're waiting for direction from the partners on that.

[51:52] Okay,

[51:55] here's my concern.

[51:58] And it's the same concern I had a conversation

[52:00] with Laura, we

[52:10] had how

[52:14] it falls.

[52:16] One was our work.

[52:20] We talked, you know, was our first real conversation

[52:24] about what this in terms of programming.

[52:28] And we were pretty clear that at this point we had no real thought of specifically how that would be taking place.

[52:40] For instance, Commissioner McGriff stated that she was not open to handing over management or programming.

[52:49] commission or a lot of Smith also mentioned and

[53:02] depending on what instruction,

[53:15] not to

[53:16] default programming to people that we are

[53:22] on and so there was clear directions kind of

[53:25] there that we weren't really ready to talk too much about details of programming.

[53:29] I mean we are really willing to talk about it and we just haven't got there yet.

[53:34] Andrew Mason also mentioned that the trust doesn't do program and that they are probably

[53:42] not the best organization to do that which we've had that conversation as well.

[53:50] My worry is this agreement, which is just about grants, the only difference with this agreement

[53:57] in terms of wording that I can pull out of that and it's written in there multiple times,

[54:02] The drastic difference with this agreement versus the old one, which by the way expired

[54:09] a year ago.

[54:10] So this being put on our consent agenda at the last meeting and then was said to us at

[54:17] the end of the meeting when we didn't get to it that it was an emergency and we really

[54:21] should address that night, which we did not.

[54:24] It's an agreement that's been expired for over a year.

[54:27] So,

[54:29] if you read the agreement, this current one, and compare it to the original agreement

[54:34] that expired a year ago, the difference is whether or not we are going to allow the

[54:40] trust to receive grants or advocate for grants for programs versus or as an addition to what

[54:49] the original agreement was, which is funding for the river walk itself.

[54:53] So my point is, if we have a gap already in even building this thing,

[55:00] Why are we even thinking about trying to solicit grants and work towards programming, especially if this is not the group that we've talked about implementing that at some point. The areas here get great in that we have.

[55:21] We've already engaged in a certain process with them that we assign this agreement and give them the go ahead to start accepting grants in our behalf in terms of viewing programming.

[55:32] programming. We're kind of already going against the concern, which is, are we going

[55:39] to already, you know, kind of default to people that are already involved, which is

[55:44] what commission allows the concern with. I think that, you know, clearly we want to

[55:49] be able to solicit grants, but if we don't even have any real understanding that this, what

[55:58] the river was going to look like for one, how we're going to actually pay for it because

[56:03] we still have a massive gap. We're several years away from even discussing programming

[56:09] and I understand that delineation here is trying to say that this agreement really is just

[56:14] a

[56:20] programming. We can do that without coming in for programming. I just think that this

[56:31] agenda and then immediately now let's be

[56:39] clear to you're ago. I think distance yet that

[56:59] we all

[57:00] getting

[57:07] into the place have a different view about where we're going.

[57:18] Very careful

[57:19] that

[57:25] it is on

[57:40] and then and one of which

[57:47] kind of the

[57:56] conversation about it before we pass this.

[58:00] But sure of no. Well first I'm going to say that I am the one of the two people that goes to those

[58:06] meetings and just recently attended the last one. I also want to say that I truly highly

[58:12] value laminate falls trust contributions because they have far exceeded some other partners

[58:18] namely the county who I don't even know what they have enough money to come sit at the table.

[58:22] So I'm I'm proud of them but my problem with this agreement is

[58:29] everything permission or smith said is correct. If you had attended that meeting,

[58:33] it's a public meeting. This project is failing. This project is not defined. There are divergent

[58:39] interest even as to how to enter the facility. And those interests include huge impacts on the

[58:46] budget, one of which jumps the budget by 17 million, which is what Commissioner Smith referred to.

[58:51] The problem with this agreement, and there's things in this agreement that you just cringe.

[58:57] There's a point where this thing doesn't come together. The funds end up, the funds raised by

[59:02] Lena Paul's trust ended up getting dispersed in the partners, which I think would be a terrible

[59:06] state. So I agree with additional discussion. The problem with this whole proposal tonight

[59:13] is there's so many elements to it and one of the elements that Commissioner Smith alluded

[59:17] to is the programming. We are so far from programming that I'm not prepared to move forward on

[59:24] this tonight and I would throw in with Commissioner Rocky Smith that this needs a whole bunch more

[59:31] sit down in the discussion because there's the problem with this kind of proposal is there

[59:35] So many individual elements that if there's even one that you disagree with, you're placed in a position of having to vote no. Thank you.

[59:48] I don't think I have any comments at this point or questions.

[59:53] Mr. McGriff?

[59:54] Yes, I want to reiterate my...

[1:00:00] Support for the Willamette Falls Trust. I do have a great deal of confidence in their ability to help us get here. And I believe that we've had just a minor, not really a minor hiccup, but we've had, you know, sort of a slight change of direction. And I think that our partners, the confederated tribes of Grand Ron are doing everything they can to help us move forward, although with the current situation with COVID, I think things have come to us to a little bit of a crawl.

[1:00:28] But that being said, that does not dissuade my confidence in the Willemite Falls Trust and their staff.

[1:00:38] I have recently, they had some participation in a process where we were talking about ideas about programming.

[1:00:47] I definitely agree with Commissioner Smith about the programming, to me that's a separate discussion.

[1:00:52] What this agreement talks about is keeping the discussion going about programming and

[1:00:57] having them bring back ideas to us about how that might happen.

[1:01:01] I agree that we needed a separate conversation about programming and my concern previously

[1:01:08] the Commissioner Smith cited was the fact that I wanted to see a little bit more of a balance

[1:01:15] in the partnership that we were going to have with regard to programming.

[1:01:18] I think in my opinion, I think my concerns about that can be resolved, but to me that's a

[1:01:23] separate conversation.

[1:01:24] I want to see us continue to move forward.

[1:01:26] I want us to promote the confidence that we have in the process, and the community has

[1:01:32] a great deal of expectations, and to that end I had suggested back in April that we even

[1:01:38] have a minimal sort of groundbreaking just so we could say we were doing something, and

[1:01:43] then obviously in the meantime we found out that the grant that the grant run we're trying

[1:01:47] to get with the EPA did not quite happen, but we're going to punt and try something else.

[1:01:51] So, I don't have a problem with this moving this forward.

[1:01:56] I believe we need to continue to have the agreement with them.

[1:02:00] I think we need to have an agreement with our partners, and I would like to see this move

[1:02:04] forward.

[1:02:05] But if we need to have further conversations about the programming, I think we need to do

[1:02:09] that.

[1:02:10] But I don't think it should be held up with regard to us having a management agreement in terms

[1:02:17] of how we operate and allowing them to receive funds if that should come to pass.

[1:02:22] I would like them to continue to be able to do that, but I think the other things can

[1:02:28] be worked out.

[1:02:29] And even though Commissioner O'Donnell said, well, if you disagree with one part of it,

[1:02:33] does it torpedo the whole thing?

[1:02:35] I think we have to continue to operate in good faith and move forward with this organization

[1:02:41] that has been partners with us in lockstep.

[1:02:44] So I have every confidence that through our city leadership, our city manager and our other departments that are working with them that we can move forward with this.

[1:02:54] I really do and I think we need to have a little bit of a little bit of faith that we're going to get there because we do have a long road.

[1:03:01] I don't want us to stop and then start because that helps us lose momentum.

[1:03:06] So that's my comments and support for the grant agreement.

[1:03:10] Mr. Frick, do we have any public comment on this?

[1:03:14] We do not.

[1:03:15] All

[1:03:20] right.

[1:03:20] So if you have any response

[1:03:28] and I want to be clear that the plan here, plan,

[1:03:40] that's one

[1:03:41] of the elements that we have been showing legacy project and so we've been working on behalf

[1:03:47] of the legacy project as a whole in order to do that.

[1:03:50] that, importantly, because in order to raise money, you know, we have, we talk to donors

[1:03:58] and they were very clear and said, we want to know two things. We want to know what's

[1:04:02] going to happen on day one when we get there. So, if we're going to make an investment, we

[1:04:07] want to know what we're going to do there. And so, we're doing our, we're, we're, we're

[1:04:10] working to answer that question. What will that experience,

[1:04:15] other, other folks that

[1:04:19] mean

[1:04:19] when we discuss

[1:04:23] it, that it seems that, you know, we aren't in the position to be able

[1:04:27] to raise a lot of additional thumbs

[1:04:35] in.

[1:05:15] Thank you.

[1:05:29] Is there a motion? I still have comments. We have two comments outstanding, Mayor. Sorry, I didn't see the screen. Commissioner Smith.

[1:05:40] I also appreciate the work that

[1:05:42] Lana Falls Trust has done up to this point on this project

[1:05:51] confidence that,

[1:05:55] and here's

[1:05:56] the reason.

[1:06:01] Well, we had the two meetings that I just spoke about previous that we had discussions

[1:06:07] about Lana Falls Trust was, that

[1:06:21] meeting was all about programming, and as you recall, it

[1:06:28] It was an MOU, I believe, or they didn't bring a MOU to us, but the assumption was at

[1:06:38] some point we were going to get toward some sort of an agreement in regards to programming.

[1:06:44] And it was clear that none of us were ready to go there.

[1:06:49] And I've talked about sidebar meetings before.

[1:06:52] Sidebar meetings are when staff immediately needs to ask us questions and have separate

[1:06:56] meeting to a regular meeting because they have concerns that we're not going to support

[1:06:59] something.

[1:07:01] So immediately following this February 5th meeting, I was asked and I think maybe not the

[1:07:06] only one as a commissioner to meet with the Wolf Lamont Falls Trust to answer or to have

[1:07:13] a conversation about the two-page list of questions that I have for them regarding programming.

[1:07:18] meeting,

[1:07:23] Lexus, Andrew, and former man Norris, where virtually none of my questions were answered,

[1:07:32] including answer

[1:07:40] two from the city of

[1:08:05] come to us and we assume they were going to come to us with

[1:08:08] an MOU pretty quickly. That never happened. And so now we're coming to this piece where we have this

[1:08:15] other agreement that kind of, you know, for

[1:08:41] the legacy project

[1:09:06] look like on day one, a

[1:09:13] planning step

[1:09:14] in determining what the scope of world class attraction is

[1:09:19] or

[1:09:29] to anyone they talk to

[1:09:34] them

[1:09:34] because there's a one's talking about it

[1:09:36] and representing it as

[1:09:49] a programming.

[1:09:50] I see.

[1:10:04] I think just-

[1:10:11] Mr. Rosal, I admire Commissioner McGriff's optimistic outlook, but I was at the last meeting. And I don't see how we can proceed with this. I mean, quite honestly, the partners are not even in agreement as to how people are going to enter the facility. And one, the part preferred by the tribe entails a $17 million addition for a bridge. We are cautioned by Mark Meak that we could potentially lose our $10 million

[1:10:39] plus the interest is gained if it chooses to revert it back because of our fiscal problems.

[1:10:45] I'm even curious about the women of post trust itself because $05.9 million a raise shows up in parentheses, so maybe they've got some concerns also.

[1:10:56] So I think, quite honestly, I think what this needs is more discussion.

[1:11:00] I think it's premature because how can we fashion a program when we don't even know what we're going to do as far as our entrance?

[1:11:06] And so, I'm going to, my comments would just reflect Commissioner Smith's comments, I'm

[1:11:12] sorry to say.

[1:11:13] Again, I'll say I do value workforce trust, they're a great partner, but let's define

[1:11:18] what we want to do, and let's make some steps before we lose the whole ball of wax.

[1:11:23] Thanks.

[1:11:29] Yes.

[1:11:31] So, my first question is, why has it taken a year to come back with an agreement?

[1:11:40] And then I assume the same agreement is being circulated by all of the partners is that that everybody's the intent is for all of the partners to sign the same agreement.

[1:11:53] Yes, it is the intent for every all the other partners to sign thus far the county has signed the trust has signed and it's in the process of being signed by Metro.

[1:12:03] It's true, the agreement lapsed last summer.

[1:12:07] We were getting ready to bring it back in December-ish of this year.

[1:12:13] And we decided to focus a little bit more on what would happen with Phase 1.

[1:12:18] As you know, a new partner or the site was purchased by the Confederate Tribes of Grand

[1:12:24] Ronde.

[1:12:24] And so we were focusing on working with them.

[1:12:27] The partners allowed us to work with them to identify an alternative approach, and so we were focused all our energy on that rather than on this agreement.

[1:12:40] What was your other question again?

[1:12:41] Those were my questions, so thank you, Mr. Ray.

[1:12:44] So, I guess where I'm at is, well, first, I believe the WLAMAPOL's trust has operated

[1:12:52] for the last year on a good faith continuation of what they've been doing in the past.

[1:13:01] And so, I'm

[1:13:06] challenged with us either not knowing that the agreement expired or, and with

[1:13:13] the issue that there's work that was performed and they haven't been compensated for that.

[1:13:19] So that's one piece of this agreement and I'm not talking about the work they're going

[1:13:22] to do that I think that we should settle up and, you know, they were operating in good

[1:13:31] faith and continuance and working with the partners and they have continued to do to work

[1:13:36] on this project and therefore I think they should be compensated for that year's worth

[1:13:40] of work. Regarding the set this year that we're in right now, which is talking about the

[1:13:49] scope of what they are going to do, which has been the majority of this conversation that

[1:13:53] we've had tonight about what they're going to work on. I agree with Commissioner McGriff

[1:13:58] that I think they're making good steps, good progress, and good faith. They're trying to

[1:14:04] work this through I think it is on a little bit shaky ground and it's unstable but I do understand

[1:14:11] that in order to raise funds for a project you have to have a plan. You have to be able to sell

[1:14:16] something and at some point it has to be to get big money I think it takes more than just selling

[1:14:22] the falls unfortunately. I think programming is part of that and so I understand that that thought

[1:14:30] process or that you know when they're out trying to collect funds for this

[1:14:35] project and if they don't have an answer when folks are asking them well what's

[1:14:40] the plan and what's going to be there and what are people going to do why should I

[1:14:43] give you a couple million dollars if you have no plan for this you know landmark

[1:14:48] huge you know world famous site but you have nothing to offer you have no

[1:14:53] nothing other than people are going to look at the fall so I could see where

[1:14:57] that would be a struggle to have that conversation in two.

[1:15:00] Do the work that they've been charged to do. So I would be supportive of this agreement. My only comment is it's on a very short thin, thin layer of ice. Like we need to see some movement. I think there's there is a lot of concern about the new owners of the project and being able to collaborate and work and move the project forward. Our community needs to see that the project is moving forward.

[1:15:29] I think we're trying to be as patient as possible, but this thin ice that we're walking on of things being unsettled

[1:15:39] can only last for so long. And I know this agreement says that it can be extended

[1:15:45] for two more years that yearly increments. I would just say that if we don't make good progress in

[1:15:52] this next year, the chances of this agreement getting extended another year is probably unlikely.

[1:15:58] So, I'll just leave it at that.

[1:16:04] Thank you. So, I'll leave my comments now.

[1:16:11] Mr. Mason and his group have done an admiral job.

[1:16:14] They've raised more money than, you know,

[1:16:19] anybody private group has ever raised an orientation.

[1:16:23] I think that it's a scary thing when you talk about marketing something.

[1:16:31] marketing takes skill and practice and needs some substance. And while I agree with

[1:16:39] Commissioner Smith and Commissioner O'Donnell that maybe this is a tad bit early, the fact

[1:16:45] is that when you're selling a high-rise condo or a theme park, you have to have creativity

[1:16:56] to get it to the

[1:16:58] where you could actually build it.

[1:17:00] And the fact is, is that, you know,

[1:17:03] this whole COVID thing has changed everybody's lives

[1:17:07] in every project's possibilities.

[1:17:11] The fact is that the balls are still there

[1:17:13] and something is going to happen.

[1:17:15] We have an easing, we have all that stuff.

[1:17:21] You know, as much as all these people love the plan stuff,

[1:17:26] and you know how I feel about master plans

[1:17:29] and all that kind of thing, I think it's dangerous for us not to at least consider the fact that preliminary planning is not a final plan by any stretch of the imagination.

[1:17:43] And so to allow these folks to continue to work on preliminary programming is not going

[1:17:54] to be support this year or for the year that we're talking about.

[1:18:00] and we talk about it in a year to see where things go.

[1:18:05] I heard that there is some question about

[1:18:10] whether the Confederate tribes that grant bond

[1:18:12] are,

[1:18:15] it's because they definitely are.

[1:18:17] I've spoken with it and they want this product

[1:18:25] to be a separate

[1:18:33] idea,

[1:18:34] but I'll hear whatever motions someone wants to make.

[1:18:39] I'd like to make a motion.

[1:18:42] Commissioner Grimm.

[1:18:43] I like to move that we approve the Willemma Falls Legacy Project and Willem Falls Trust grant

[1:18:48] agreement for the period of one year as specified in the document, and that we move forward

[1:18:55] with trying to have further discussions, even though our plate is really full.

[1:18:58] I think this is a discussion that we need to figure out somehow to get going again.

[1:19:07] I'll second.

[1:19:08] and I have a question.

[1:19:13] In the wording of this agreement,

[1:19:19] what I don't want to have happen

[1:19:20] is this agreement being voted in for a year and then that expires and we don't hear about

[1:19:26] it for another year. So I want to make some assurance that there's an end date to this,

[1:19:31] where it comes to us, or it's null and void on that day.

[1:19:36] Okay.

[1:19:37] Would it be acceptable if we get a report from the Trust on 9DA prior to the expiration date?

[1:20:16] So,

[1:20:18] I would just caution that most of the other parties have signed the agreement, but I will read from the agreement, which it says, the term of this agreement may be extended. So, it says the term is actually one year. The term of this agreement may be extended for one year period by written agreement between all parties. So, there is a written agreement.

[1:20:38] I think that term, Mr. Mayor, I think that term would allow us to, and in with your direction tonight, we will take on that responsibility and in our discussion with Mr. Mason for the quarterly updates that we do have to bring this back for, you know, written agreement.

[1:20:53] I think staff and myself understand exactly where this commission is coming from in wanting more information and updates and discussion about this.

[1:21:03] and it expires. Yeah, there there is an expiration date of June 30th 2021.

[1:21:08] Right. With all written agreement. Right. With all written agreement.

[1:21:11] Mr. Smith, that. Commissioner Smith, does that satisfy your question?

[1:21:17] Well, not really, because have they been acting with this agreement, the past agreement

[1:21:22] in effect since it expired. Well, we're not talking about past, we're talking about.

[1:21:27] I mean, if we're saying that they are working in good faith, the fact is that the last

[1:21:33] time we sign an agreement, they waited a year after it expired to come and talk about

[1:21:38] it.

[1:21:39] So then we're going to now assume that we're going to give them the benefit of that out

[1:21:43] and they're going to come and do that at the end of the next year and don't be hoved

[1:21:46] them to do that.

[1:21:47] Behooves them to keep doing what they're doing and not saying anything and then say, oh,

[1:21:50] by the way, now we forgot about it a year later.

[1:21:53] I think unless it's in there, it means nothing.

[1:21:59] Commissioner Smith, it takes two to tango.

[1:22:02] Hang on.

[1:22:03] So the point is that the partners group gets regular updates

[1:22:09] from the one

[1:22:14] of those folks who attends those meetings as I do.

[1:22:17] And every commissioner here has the opportunity

[1:22:21] to attend those meetings as well.

[1:22:22] But the fact is is that if we say and Mr. Mason has agreed that they're going to give us quarterly updates, I think that satisfies your objective.

[1:22:35] Well, I'll point out that Commissioner Donald does against this and if he is one of our representatives, that's pointing in.

[1:22:41] And also, I believe if staff that can find out, is it true that well outfalls trust was behind in their rent?

[1:22:52] They were behind in their rent.

[1:22:54] Yes, and now they're up today.

[1:22:55] they were behind in their rent.

[1:22:57] So not only were they behind in their rent,

[1:22:58] they were also waited a year later.

[1:23:01] So I don't know how we think that this is like,

[1:23:04] you know, we're just gonna take their word for it.

[1:23:08] Well, you gotta first guess

[1:23:12] all I say

[1:23:13] is I'm uncomfortable with the details.

[1:23:15] I would prefer we had a professional conversation

[1:23:17] and got more specific on it before I could support it.

[1:23:23] And I'm sorry I'm placed in that position,

[1:23:26] but that's position I'm in.

[1:23:27] Okay, so is there any further discussion?

[1:23:31] No.

[1:23:37] Commissioner Rachel Laosmith.

[1:23:38] Aye.

[1:23:39] Commissioner Rocky Smith.

[1:23:42] No.

[1:23:43] Commissioner Frank Goodonnell.

[1:23:45] No.

[1:23:47] Commissioner Denise McGriff.

[1:23:49] Yes.

[1:23:50] Mayor Dan Holliday.

[1:23:52] Aye, motion carries.

[1:23:54] Move on.

[1:23:58] The next agenda item is General Business Item 7C

[1:24:02] and that is the Resolution 20-05.

[1:24:05] modifications of the planning division fee schedule, and that is Laura

[1:24:11] Terwey. Thank you very much. I'm introducing Christina Robertson

[1:24:15] Gardner, your senior planner with the city.

[1:24:21] Thank you, Laura Terwey. Mayor

[1:24:23] commissioners, I have a short four-slide presentation this evening about the

[1:24:28] fees, and I'll let Katie start that. Thank you.

[1:24:36] This is the Park's acquisition

[1:24:38] interim development fee for non-residential development within the

[1:24:42] a symbol creek, beaver creek park place concept, excuse me, beaver creek concept plan.

[1:24:47] So just some of the fee proposal process of how we got here this evening.

[1:24:52] The Parks and Rec Advisory Committee and Planning Commission directed staff

[1:24:56] that non-residential development should contribute today.

[1:25:00] The acquisition interim development of park spaces above and beyond required park CSTC. They felt that employees of symbol creep businesses will have access to nearby parks. Staff proceeded a simple and straightforward fee for non-residential park acquisition and interim improvements because it provided the most transparency for the development community. The fee is set for $1,000 for each new 5,000 square feet of non-residential development. This is exclusively for acquisition

[1:25:29] an interim development of parks and open spaces within cymbal creek and the fee was referenced

[1:25:34] in a legislative file in the red line code amendments starting in the fall of 2019,

[1:25:40] including the staff report and presentation of the city commission and really it's part of the

[1:25:44] larger cymbal creek adoption package but was separated as an agenda item because it adopted as a

[1:25:50] fee resolution. Next slide.

[1:25:55] There was some question about how this fee related to system development

[1:25:59] for parks. I had assistant city engineer Josh Wheeler put together a estimated fee for potential future projects. So what you see in the above table are estimated fees for a 5,000 square foot building on two vacant acres.

[1:26:17] So you see kind of different, we looked at three different use criteria that would be might

[1:26:23] be in the employment areas.

[1:26:24] And the Thimble Creek non-residential parks acquisition in room development fee is,

[1:26:30] would be $10,000 for that same $50,000 square feet, so that would be added on to the park's

[1:26:37] SDC when the applicant came in for development next slide.

[1:26:42] this evening, I wanted to provide comments. There are two comments from James and CEDA and

[1:26:51] your packet as well as a memorandum submitted by Bill Kabai's when our city attorney. Why

[1:26:56] partner or finance director and Bill Kabai's when our available answer your questions about

[1:27:01] those issues this evening. And the last slide.

[1:27:08] What I see options for the city commission this

[1:27:10] evening, you can approve the resolution with the existing fee structure as proposed by staff.

[1:27:16] You can modify the resolution with the revised fee structure.

[1:27:20] You can deny the resolution and provide direction that you do not want to see a fee for

[1:27:25] non-residential park acquisition in-erm development in the concept plan area, or you could continue

[1:27:30] this file to a future date and provide further direction to staff.

[1:27:34] So I'm available to answer any questions, so is Mr. Parno and Mr. Capison?

[1:27:50] My memorandum was relatively short response to specific issues that were raised by the public

[1:27:57] comment. I'm happy to answer any questions otherwise they think it speaks for

[1:28:01] itself.

[1:28:06] I'm curious if our economic development coordinator James Graham is

[1:28:10] here. I know it seems like our city is based based on fee bases and you'll see

[1:28:16] feel this will impact his ability to attract commercial businesses to this

[1:28:21] development if he's available.

[1:28:32] About the fee

[1:28:35] development it's probably worth

[1:28:42] to

[1:28:43] and act to see at this point, it would be difficult.

[1:28:51] Mr. Mayor, can I make a comment?

[1:28:54] Last month.

[1:28:56] Thank you.

[1:28:57] So the reason this is on the agenda,

[1:28:59] it was because it was on the consent agenda

[1:29:01] at our last meeting,

[1:29:03] and it was one that I felt like the commission needed

[1:29:05] to discuss or I had reservations on it,

[1:29:09] and I wanted to hear the discussion and input

[1:29:11] from our other commissioners at the DIAS.

[1:29:15] My reservations are probably in the same vein

[1:29:19] of where Commissioner Donnell was going with asking Mr. Graham about economic development.

[1:29:26] I've since confirmed so all of these businesses are already paying SDCs and I couldn't figure

[1:29:33] out why are we calling out these businesses and asking them to add on an additional fee.

[1:29:38] If our SDCs are insufficient then we should be doing an evaluation of our SDCs and I believe

[1:29:44] I believe that is coming, but maybe it's only coming for part of our SDC's and not going to consider parks, so I don't know if you, if, do you know Christina Robertson Gardner can answer that for you, Christina, do you know?

[1:30:00] So, about future parks SDCs? Yes. Are they is the evaluation that I believe is coming on SDCs, including parks SDCs? Well, that would be a future project by our new parks director. This was looking at interim development and acquisition, which in the idea that if development happened sooner before the parks

[1:30:31] SDCCs were analyzed that we made sure that we had the ability to acquire the property

[1:30:39] we needed.

[1:30:40] So this was looked at for that.

[1:30:42] So, and it was specific within the area, whereas SDCCs are generally looked at city

[1:30:48] wide.

[1:30:49] Right.

[1:30:50] So, you know, I think park SDCCs funds are probably one of the only funds that we actually

[1:30:57] We have available to us, and we don't spend a lot of park STC funds on acquisition of parks.

[1:31:05] So I would think Mr. Parno, I believe, is still on the line.

[1:31:08] I mean, I feel like that fund is pretty healthy and we're not buying up park land all over the place.

[1:31:13] So I'm not concerned, I'm surprised we're calling out these businesses in this area to pay an additional fee.

[1:31:19] And I just have a little heartburn over that.

[1:31:24] So, Mr. Parno, did you have anything else to add on the SDC funds?

[1:31:31] Thank you, Commission President Miles Smith, Mayor and City Commissioners.

[1:31:34] I don't know that I have anything additional to add to that.

[1:31:36] Just looking at it practically in terms of the reserve funds that we have in the SDC's,

[1:31:42] it's true that there is a large demand across the city for those funds,

[1:31:46] even though we haven't tapped into them directly and recently,

[1:31:49] There is a need to have additional SDCs for parks to cover the whole city.

[1:31:55] That's not for me to say in terms of policy whether these fees are appropriate or not.

[1:32:01] But we're not flush with cash in that area.

[1:32:05] And the other thing I wanted to comment on was just that there is another process that we've talked about before

[1:32:11] which is we can have an area specific SDC and so on and so forth.

[1:32:16] So I think that speaks to your question about what's the inner tie between this fee and

[1:32:21] the park's SDCs and so forth, and I get a sense from the commission of wanting to have

[1:32:25] a better understanding of that, and I appreciate that.

[1:32:27] I think those are my only comments.

[1:32:30] President Trump, Donald, do you have your hand raised?

[1:32:32] I do.

[1:32:36] The Commissioner Rachel Lyle Smith.

[1:32:39] I mean, let's face it, we are trying to attract real businesses, not in the industry,

[1:32:44] businesses, so for every acre of a manufacturing facility, we're going to add $40,000 to

[1:32:50] their cost. It's even built a 4-acre facility. It's $166 million. I don't want to get

[1:32:58] in the way of attracting jobs to this community. I think the re-evaluation of those SBCs,

[1:33:04] I think this is a poor substitute for other things that could be done and should be discussed.

[1:33:09] Thank you. Mr. Mayor, may I add a comment, please?

[1:33:16] I think because of the situation we're in with the economy, I guess I would like to suggest

[1:33:24] that maybe we bring this back where we'd look at a area-specific SDC to collect the SDC's

[1:33:32] for the Trimble Creek Area and that they stay in the Trimble Creek Area.

[1:33:35] I'd rather see that than a new general fee when right now we're not sure people can really

[1:33:41] even cover these. I support us getting acquisition for parks in this area because obviously I have a great deal of concern about some of those natural areas being removed.

[1:33:53] So is there a way that we could could backtrack a little bit and look at a preliminary amendment to RSDC so any SDCs collected in this area could just go there for parks.

[1:34:04] Would that be a way, as was suggested, would that be a way to not have this fee?

[1:34:17] I can't speak to that particularly because I know there's a larger question about, you know,

[1:34:26] when you put aside money specifically for SD streets for an area, but you want to use it for another area

[1:34:34] because you have a grant opportunity but you're constrained.

[1:34:36] So I know I've heard a lot of times with economists saying be careful when you put all your money in all the lots of different pots that sometimes you lose out on opportunities with grants.

[1:34:46] One option could be this fee could be this discussion to be continued for another meeting.

[1:34:52] We do have a reference in the code in the code amendments that there is a fee.

[1:35:00] If no fee is adopted this evening, the fee is zero. So there could have a larger conversation about what is the right fee or what fee could be adopted. At this time, if the fee isn't adopted, we wouldn't collect any money.

[1:35:15] So Mr. Farnam. Thank you mayor and city commissioners. I appreciate Mr. McGress suggestion. I thought that was a good one too, but I think that the issue that was raised by Commissioner O'Donnell and some of the other commissioners

[1:35:32] shares about is a fee appropriate and needed in this area and what impact would that have

[1:35:38] on economic development is one thing, whether or not you've collected a fee based on

[1:35:43] SDCs or a fee, I think it's probably a little less relevant because one might be more complicated

[1:35:50] than the other.

[1:35:51] So I guess I just want to say that I wasn't necessarily advocating for areas specific

[1:35:56] SDC before answering the question of are those fees appropriate in the area to accomplish

[1:36:02] I wish what you want to achieve.

[1:36:13] I would just say I'm just not in favor of adding on an additional fee to businesses when we're really concerned and trying to get businesses into that area.

[1:36:23] I just would prefer to leave the fee at zero.

[1:36:26] I like the idea of the concept of getting more parks in area, but I'm not ready to impose a fee on that areas as well.

[1:36:34] I just, under other circumstances.

[1:36:36] Is there a motion?

[1:36:42] Mr. Gabizman, may I ask for some advice so that we don't want to adopt it?

[1:36:46] Do we just leave it or do we need to make a motion saying that we don't support adoption of this fee?

[1:36:56] You can move table

[1:37:00] it, you can move to deny the resolution, yeah, you can take a number of different actions.

[1:37:07] The question is, in my mind, do you want to put it into this and not have the topic

[1:37:13] come back to you or do you want to continue a discussion?

[1:37:17] I think my—

[1:37:18] I would

[1:37:21] suggest that we table this until January 2021.

[1:37:32] Why?

[1:37:33] What's the significance of January 2021?

[1:37:36] I guess, Mr. Mayor, if we were going to table it, I don't want to make it a date certain.

[1:37:40] I think I would like to suggest that if we table that we ask staff to maybe come up with another option that might achieve the same goal without charging an additional fee to people, I'm just I'm not I'm just not comfortable at this time.

[1:37:56] The economy was a little different maybe but I just I don't feel comfortable now. I'm implementing this I look I like that I want more parks in that area but I don't want to put more money more fees on people right now.

[1:38:11] And the point I was making is that, you know, let's get through this year to figure out what's, you know, there are a lot of things that are going to happen in the next few months.

[1:38:22] We table it until 2021, not to take January, just 2021.

[1:38:27] Let staff come back to us if they think they still need to have a seat.

[1:38:33] I'm just going to make a motion to table.

[1:38:35] to deny it. I believe it. Motion there's a motion there's a second.

[1:38:41] What was the motion that I made a table? Motion to deny.

[1:38:44] There was a complaint. It was to deny.

[1:38:47] Okay, and Denise Commissioner McGriff also made a motion at the same exact time to

[1:38:53] table it. So if one of the motions acquires a second that would be the motion on

[1:38:58] the table. Motion to table basically takes precedent over a motion to deny.

[1:39:03] If there's a second.

[1:39:06] We need a second for anything.

[1:39:08] All second.

[1:39:09] Commissioner Donnell's motion.

[1:39:12] Second.

[1:39:13] For the discussion.

[1:39:14] Is there a second for Commissioner McGriff's motion?

[1:39:18] Apparently not.

[1:39:19] Too late.

[1:39:20] It's on the floor already.

[1:39:21] Move and second.

[1:39:22] Move on.

[1:39:25] Okay.

[1:39:25] All are all please.

[1:39:27] Okay.

[1:39:28] I verify the question for everyone, please.

[1:39:31] Commissioner.

[1:39:32] Yes.

[1:39:33] Yes.

[1:39:34] This resolution.

[1:39:36] Yeah, it was moved and seconded to deny resolution number 20-05 modification of the planning fee schedule.

[1:39:48] Commissioner Rachel Laosmith.

[1:39:49] Aye.

[1:39:50] Commissioner Rocky Smith.

[1:39:54] Commissioner Franco Donald.

[1:39:56] Aye.

[1:39:57] Commissioner Denise McGriff.

[1:39:59] No.

[1:40:02] So,

[1:40:05] before we move on, that I'm not there, does folks in the chamber want to take a 10-minute break?

[1:40:15] Five.

[1:40:20] Back at 9-10. Okay. I think that's too long. 9-10 is too long. We need a five-minute break. If I may request that. 9 o'clock.

[1:40:35] 9 o'clock, 8.58 now, 5.53, 8.53. We can come back at 9, not 9.10. 8 o'clock.

[1:40:46] I

[1:41:05] came to you while I was muted. I'm so sorry. Yes, we are ready now. Can you hear me now?

[1:41:12] I'll call the meeting back to order. What's next?

[1:41:15] So the next agenda item is General Business 7D that is Resolution No. 20-22 to allow temporary

[1:41:26] parklets in the right of way and temporary outdoor dining and retail in private parking

[1:41:32] lots.

[1:41:33] And that is Tony Kongle.

[1:41:36] If the

[1:41:39] commandable given the time I already and the interest in the water

[1:41:47] work part of discussion, would you be interested in moving that up to this

[1:41:51] then I have now. I'm sorry I couldn't hear what you said to do

[1:41:57] water board park. Oh yeah I'm fine with that.

[1:42:04] Although I can make a motion really

[1:42:05] quick on 7e and get that out of there.

[1:42:09] I'm finding your way. Yeah let's move it.

[1:42:11] All right, then let's move on. We'll park out and whoever's thinking that one. Let's do it and we'll move on okay. Thank you mayor evening commissioner. So this is the public works upper yard charter park discussion.

[1:42:26] Staff is requesting direction from the commission how to proceed with the designation of the public works upper yard as a charter park.

[1:42:32] The commission requested the staff prepare the estimated value of the upper yard tax lot

[1:42:38] 1700 in the armory building, which is estimated at $2.45 million.

[1:42:43] A potential boundary of a charter park has been included, which includes the property

[1:42:47] lines for the armory building tax lot 1700 and the upper yard, which is tax lot 500.

[1:42:53] The boundary at the upper yard would be approximately 1 to 2 feet behind the cliff edge at the top

[1:42:57] of the bluff.

[1:42:58] To bring forward an ordinance to signate in the upper yard areas of charter, park staff

[1:43:02] The staff has proposed hiring a consultant to complete a lot line adjustment or minor partition of tax law 500 staff has requested direction on the disposition of tax law 1700 in the timing of adopting the armory building tax law as a charter park.

[1:43:16] In the staff report I did include our previous commission discussions related to clarifying that the two of their buildings would be demolished as part of this process.

[1:43:29] I would need to advertise that process for anybody who would like to take those buildings,

[1:43:36] we would enter into a contract for that demolition. So we'd have to do the RFP for that,

[1:43:40] that we would document the two buildings and archive that information appropriately.

[1:43:50] The one outstanding item was tax law 1700 just a reminder that some of these properties were

[1:43:58] a purchase with utility funds tax lot 1700, which is on the upper yard.

[1:44:02] It was the small tax lot that used to be a single family house was purchased with utility funds that if that's going to be made into a park, it would be appropriate for the utility funds to be repaid for the value of that property.

[1:44:17] The estimate is an estimate.

[1:44:20] So I received a broker's opinion of value.

[1:44:26] So, this is not an appraisal and it included assumptions for demolition costs, infrastructures.

[1:44:34] This is really just to give us a ballpark of when we're talking about one of the questions

[1:44:39] was what would be the value of this property when we're thinking about making it into a park

[1:44:45] or not if it was my understanding of that question.

[1:44:48] So, once again, this is an estimate, we did not do engineering, it's basalt up there, but

[1:44:54] but it does get a general ballpark of what that value would look like and then.

[1:45:00] And then really, we had a discussion about the armory building has been demolished at this point. We need to engage them about when that transfer of property back to the city, which was the reversionary clause when it was sold to the Army that it would revert back if it stopped using an armory. And how do we want to work that timing and potentially it could be a new issue.

[1:45:28] If it by the time we get done with a partition or a lot line adjustment demolish the buildings we may have ownership at that point

[1:45:36] But really it was a timing issue

[1:45:38] We didn't know when that demolition was going to be completed when we had our last discussion

[1:45:44] So we've had several conversations on this property. I'd be happy to try and answer any questions

[1:45:51] That the commission may have

[1:45:52] I may ask a question. Please we don't have we don't have we don't have errors. Yes, sir.

[1:46:01] Mr. Yes, sir. Is there any? Is there any public comment? There is public comment. Yes.

[1:46:08] Would you like to begin with that? How many do we have? We have two. How many do you have? Two.

[1:46:14] I have a question. Mr. Mayor.

[1:46:20] Yes, Mr. Mr. Conkel. I did note that in the I'm holding up

[1:46:25] the colored map that there was a portion that was left off and I will hand this to you so

[1:46:31] do you see my highlighted yellow that is at the top of the bluff that was somehow excluded

[1:46:38] and you see I don't know if you can see it I highlighted in yellow it's a little squiggly

[1:46:43] line around that piece that's still that's on that's up on the top.

[1:46:52] I don't know. I haven't seen Mr. Buss's submittal. Look at Jesse Buss's public comment. It's on your

[1:47:00] diet. Yeah, the computer.

[1:47:05] No, it's part of the yard. It just got left off of your blue line there.

[1:47:12] Yeah, yeah, yeah. Follows the cliff. Yeah.

[1:47:16] I think that's in Jesse Buss. Oh, okay. Yeah, I haven't seen that.

[1:47:20] Yeah, but I'll flip over and look at it because I did not see that.

[1:47:29] The comment where they asked the, I think it was Mary and the last to have this comment

[1:47:37] read in the records.

[1:47:39] Is there another one?

[1:47:40] I'll find that.

[1:47:42] Oh, I'm sorry.

[1:47:43] I missed the reading.

[1:47:46] You said that you saw Doug Neely asked his to be read into the record.

[1:47:52] Yes.

[1:47:52] I don't recall if any others asked that, but I did want to mention that there were

[1:47:57] for several submittals for this agenda item.

[1:48:02] I understand that, but the mayor asked that his letter be

[1:48:07] right in the record asking to do that now.

[1:48:10] I got a kick.

[1:48:11] Okay, thanks.

[1:48:12] To the City of Oregon City,

[1:48:14] City of Commission, Doug Neely,

[1:48:16] Oregon City resident and Prach member designation

[1:48:17] of Public Works Upper Yard as a park agenda item 7G,

[1:48:22] City of Oregon City Commission meeting of June 30th, 2020.

[1:48:27] In a previous discussion about the recommendation from Pat to have the public works up a yard designated as a park the concern was raised about the estimated 22 to 24 million dollars projected needs for parks and recreation not covered under current funding.

[1:48:40] That figure was presented to a joint meeting of the city commission in the park approximately two years ago.

[1:48:46] While the park was aware of substantial deferred maintenance, it had not heard of the estimated cost until that meeting nor is a list of what would be covered under the additional funding been presented to park.

[1:48:56] I agree that this cost is a major issue and it should be this should be a future topic of discussion at Prach followed by another joint meeting between Prach and the City Commission.

[1:49:06] However, this funding issue should not be the basis of rejecting the upper yard designation.

[1:49:11] In the time that I've lived in Oregon City, there have been several city park acquisitions that have had several years of delay between the times of acquisition and times of the planning of those parks.

[1:49:20] among them are Wesley Linden Park, Tyrone S Woods Park, which has just had its groundbreaking

[1:49:26] event in a park currently referred to as Filbert Run for which a planning grant is being sought.

[1:49:30] I suggest that the City Commission indicated support of a park designation of public works

[1:49:35] upper yard and defer the decision of transfer or purchase of the land until a later time followed

[1:49:40] by community input as it is planned to use.

[1:49:49] That completes the letter.

[1:49:50] Thank you, so let's take the other public comment.

[1:49:57] So the first one is Jesse Bus and

[1:50:00] And he is on via phone. So I will go ahead and unmute his phone now if he could begin by stating his first and last name and city of residency for the record. And he has up to three minutes.

[1:50:13] Hello, this is Jesse bus. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Go ahead. Thank you. I'm a resident of Oregon city. You all know my position on this proposal. I support it. And I'm personally thrilled that the commission appears to be on the brink of making history.

[1:50:32] by permanently protecting these additional five acres as parkland, but it's not just me.

[1:50:38] The groundswell of public support for this proposal has been impressive.

[1:50:43] The last time the Commission discussed these charter park protections,

[1:50:46] the Commission received nearly 50 comments from citizens throughout Oregon City.

[1:50:51] Those people use and value water board park, including these five acres.

[1:50:55] Going back further, and just the past few years, hundreds of residents have commented

[1:51:01] in participated in efforts to protect this land for open space and recreation, the community

[1:51:06] cares deeply about this land. But the events of the past five years aren't what make this

[1:51:12] a historic moment. This is a historic moment because you have the opportunity to stop,

[1:51:18] once and for all, a cycle that has repeated itself multiple times over the past 110 years.

[1:51:25] In that time, it's been a push-pull situation over and over again. Is it a park?

[1:51:30] is it not a park for the city to sell the land to private developers or should it be recreational space we are caught in a cycle

[1:51:38] During World War one the water board got close to selling the land for private development

[1:51:43] But after a public outcry the city commission instructed the water board to keep the land as a park and the following years the land continued to be improved and used as a park

[1:51:53] Then again in the World War two and post-World War two years this area was developed with non-park buildings

[1:51:59] and the recreational vision for the site got off track.

[1:52:03] So then again, in the 1950s, the public demanded the land

[1:52:06] to be, quote, reclaimed as park land,

[1:52:09] and the Planning Commission and City Commission approved

[1:52:11] a park's master plan for these acres.

[1:52:14] From lack of funding though,

[1:52:15] the master plan was never built out.

[1:52:19] The equipment of the public works department started,

[1:52:21] and you already know that history well.

[1:52:23] But my point is that we've been in a push-pull cycle

[1:52:26] on this property for 110 years,

[1:52:28] and you now have a chance to stop that cycle for good.

[1:52:32] If he doesn't make this land his charter park land,

[1:52:35] never again will the citizens have to reclaim this land

[1:52:38] for park use.

[1:52:40] It will stay that way forever.

[1:52:42] To honor her 1917 efforts to preserve Waterboard Park,

[1:52:46] I will quote Mrs. J.W. Norris,

[1:52:49] a member of the Oregon City Women's Club.

[1:52:53] Commission meeting just like this one in 1917,

[1:52:57] Mrs. Norris asked the simple,

[1:52:58] So

[1:53:02] why do we have to beg and beg for a thing of which we may well be proud and

[1:53:08] preserve

[1:53:08] these five acres as permanent parkland.

[1:53:11] Thank you.

[1:53:18] Next is Cameron McCready.

[1:53:27] Mr. Mayor, commissioners, thank you for allowing me the five minutes offered as Chair of the

[1:53:33] Malafan Neighbor Association.

[1:53:36] Rather than try and bring people here to testify, I thought we'd bring you to them so we

[1:53:40] prepared a five-minute video for you.

[1:53:42] Let's

[1:54:05] take a second.

[1:54:06] Bottom and bottom.

[1:54:07] Yes, three.

[1:54:08] In

[1:54:21] 10, the Board of Water purchased this land

[1:54:23] for the purpose of building an enormous reservoir

[1:54:26] in city park.

[1:54:28] The plans for the reservoir change,

[1:54:30] and instead the water board called the land

[1:54:33] is 13 and a half acre park,

[1:54:35] set aside for park purposes for the use and benefit

[1:54:39] of the youth of Oregon City.

[1:54:43] Hi, I'm Mike Mitchell and I'm a resident

[1:54:45] of the Coffield neighborhood.

[1:54:46] But I encourage your support of the resolution to designate the upper yard portion of the public

[1:54:52] works yard as part of Water Board Park.

[1:54:55] I voted for that two years ago as a member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee.

[1:54:59] I supported it.

[1:55:00] And I support it now. We just have so few opportunities to add parkland that will need in the future for our city. Hi, my name is Jackie Heman Williams and I've lived in the Oregon city. Pop place neighborhood for 30 years and the founder of the Oregon city farmers market. And I really would like to see the city of Oregon city give charter protection to lower water board path. It's a unique and marvelous area and I can see it would be a great place to have community gardens.

[1:55:29] and be a community gathering space.

[1:55:32] A 1921 improving water board park was part of the official city budget.

[1:55:38] And in 1931, the city was employing five people to improve and maintain the park.

[1:55:45] Hello, I'm Ed Linquist.

[1:55:47] I'm an Oregon City resident that lives next to water board park on the upper side.

[1:55:51] I'm concerned about the park and where it goes and what happens to it.

[1:55:55] Because once it's gone, I can tell you, after having been a county commissioner for 14 years and doing whatever we could to preserve grounds for parks, that's a diamond in the rough.

[1:56:06] So if that upper yard could be added to the park, I think it would be a very positive thing for the parks of Oregon City.

[1:56:14] In 1935, the city commissioned a survey of the boundaries of Water Board Park, which was recorded with the county.

[1:56:23] In 1939 City Manager J.L. Frans and described Water Board Park as one of the only large

[1:56:29] parks owned by the city.

[1:56:33] Roger Feller-Ties, president of the Oregon

[1:56:36] City Parks Foundation, a stakeholder here in Water Board Park. On behalf of our membership,

[1:56:41] we fully support adding Lower Water Board, also known as the Upper Yard, into the Water

[1:56:47] Board Park boundaries. I'm Doug Neely. I'm a resident of the West

[1:56:51] Farm's neighborhood. I'm the former Mayor of Oregon City and I'm currently serving on the Parks and

[1:56:57] Park Creation Advisory Committee. Two years ago, that committee voted to recommend to the City Commission

[1:57:04] that the F.R.Y.R. to the what public works be included as part of Water Board Park. This year, earlier,

[1:57:12] we went ahead and reaffirmed that effort. Although brush was cleared and graded for a double tennis court,

[1:57:19] and ground selected for a possible ball diamond.

[1:57:22] The project was put on hold due to the war effort.

[1:57:27] Hi, my name is Sarah Kramer,

[1:57:29] and I am a teacher at Gardner Middle School.

[1:57:32] I believe that the lower part of Waterboard Park

[1:57:34] should be officially recognized as Park Space.

[1:57:37] Our park lands are essential for all of us,

[1:57:40] especially children, for all of our health and well-being.

[1:57:43] Hi, I'm Jerry Herman, president of Rivers of Life Center,

[1:57:47] the youth education and training organization.

[1:57:50] Waterport Park and the flat below are two seamless elements of what to be Oregon's geologic

[1:57:57] significant park.

[1:57:58] The lands were scoured by Asage Woods.

[1:58:00] It's time to tell the story at one site.

[1:58:04] After World War II, the city resumed efforts to develop the park.

[1:58:08] This resulted in a 1952 master plan, which included tennis courts, outdoor theater,

[1:58:16] Recreation center, picnic areas, open spaces, and parking.

[1:58:21] Technology in the world were two related buildings have been built on the flat area of the park.

[1:58:26] The 1952 plan declared that every effort should be made to clear the lower flat ground at the end of John Adams Street

[1:58:34] so that the several acres of central park area may be reclaimed and put the vital permanent use as park and recreation center.

[1:58:44] Here and now, much like in 1952, the community is ready to reclaim the lower area of Water Board Park.

[1:58:59] Alice Norris, former Mayor of Oregon City. Parks are important to our growing community.

[1:59:04] So let's preserve Water Board Park and especially that lower area and get those boundaries secured in the charter.

[1:59:38] We have Betty Mom.

[1:59:40] Oh.

[1:59:41] Sorry, there was one late coming.

[1:59:43] Thank you, Mr. Mom.

[1:59:45] Good.

[1:59:48] Oh, Betty Mom, Oregon City.

[1:59:50] My disclaimer is I live with the mayor.

[1:59:52] He does not speak for me.

[1:59:53] I do not speak for him.

[1:59:55] My words are my words, and here they are.

[1:59:58] A little history.

[2:00:00] On this area, in 2008 or might have been 2009, the public works director at the time, Nancy

[2:00:08] Kreshauer was tasked with the, to put the site, the current, that site into the public

[2:00:18] works facility. At that time, the McLaughlin neighborhood association filled the room and

[2:00:26] and made noise about suing the city.

[2:00:29] So yes, it's been talked about for 10 or 12 years.

[2:00:33] At your last meeting, I heard some comments about, we don't have enough parks, we need flat land that's been before practice twice.

[2:00:46] Well, I can't think of any neighborhood that doesn't have, or

[2:00:50] doesn't want more park space, look at park place.

[2:00:53] they have just one city park. Yes, it's been before practice twice and of course they want it

[2:01:00] to be a park. But we the citizens have not had an opportunity to discuss what the lay-on could be

[2:01:07] used for because it's been available for about a year, year to half since it was no longer considered

[2:01:15] part of public works. So then at your last meeting I heard comments about money as it relevant

[2:01:24] Regardless of value, so those comments concerned me so my comment to you is maybe the value or the money does not matter to me or to you or to some of you, but it's extremely important to me.

[2:01:40] And when you're talking about public money, you have to have all the facts presented to you so you could make an informed decision on what to do.

[2:01:51] So the more information you have, the better.

[2:01:55] Then came the comment about the lawsuits.

[2:01:59] The McLaughlin neighborhood is not known for,

[2:02:03] the McLaughlin neighborhood association is not known for compromising.

[2:02:07] And why should they?

[2:02:08] If I was in their shoes, maybe I wouldn't either.

[2:02:11] Just a quick reminder that it takes three votes to move anything forward, including a lawsuit.

[2:02:18] then it came to regardless of what anybody at the city says, the citizens, including the majority of the commission want the upper yard to be a part because they've always considered it to be a part.

[2:02:32] Well, that concerns me because if you don't follow these laws, then are there other laws that you're not following?

[2:02:39] So just a general comment is you have to pay back the utility funds because of the purchase

[2:02:47] of the house.

[2:02:48] So is that coming out of general funds, public works or park funds?

[2:02:54] We already have a $25 million deficit in park funds maintenance.

[2:03:01] So my advice, my suggestion is maybe you can put it to an advisory vote and see what the citizens want.

[2:03:10] Thank you.

[2:03:15] Thank you.

[2:03:18] Nope, there's no one else.

[2:03:30] For everything that's been said, I've pondered it at length.

[2:03:34] If I were to make a motion, it would have a number of caveats to it.

[2:03:38] It would simply say that upon the completion of the lot line adjustment,

[2:03:44] upon the removal of the air buildings,

[2:03:47] upon the reversion of the armory property,

[2:03:50] and in deference to former mayor Doug Mealy

[2:03:54] and other statements made upon completion,

[2:03:57] and review of public opinion,

[2:03:59] whether that be an advisory voter or some other methodology,

[2:04:03] I would move that at the upper yard

[2:04:07] and designate the upper yard as part of the water board park.

[2:04:10] That would be my comment,

[2:04:11] if I'm called upon to make it.

[2:04:14] Thank you, sir commissioner Smith.

[2:04:19] A couple things here.

[2:04:21] I've been pretty vocal on this subject for a long time.

[2:04:25] In fact, I think I've at least once or twice made the motion to make this a part.

[2:04:29] So we're getting their citizens, we're getting there.

[2:04:34] I will say that one of the things that I want to find out more about is the map.

[2:04:43] some of the Commissioner Donald's questions or points.

[2:04:49] The math that was sent to us that Commissioner McGriff

[2:04:52] kind of pointed out to a missing piece

[2:04:54] and Jesse Buss also in his email to us pointed out

[2:05:01] There is a piece that is on the upper part of, above the lower part. Now, it's above the public work site. There's a little

[2:05:21] piece, I think, is crucial to being added in. It is above the cliff. And it should be part of that map that we show with the blue dotted line.

[2:05:34] be it reason that that's so important and then I'll also talk about the House. I believe

[2:05:41] the House that we're talking about is the one Arc 306 and the map in

[2:05:55] there for public works

[2:05:56] or make it easier around that corner. I understand that if that

[2:06:06] we might have to reimburse that.

[2:06:09] My question would be or my consideration that we should talk about is this, if we are moving towards

[2:06:18] making the both what, 1700 and 500, both part of the park, then we need to add that one piece

[2:06:28] that's missing and we need to then have a discussion about the house. I would argue that

[2:06:36] But that house is just an important to the access of the park as it would be to the

[2:06:42] access of the public works site that we had originally planned there, and that's because

[2:06:47] that adds a wider part of that property to a connection to South Center Street.

[2:06:55] We have now got sidewalks for the first time on South Center Street that allow a connection

[2:07:00] to the promenade, which means that those two pieces that knob that was not in the city map and the house would widen that connection to sell center street.

[2:07:14] That would allow for at to the museum and the promenade to waterboard park and the current upper waterboard park.

[2:07:25] So I think we should consider that in this conversation.

[2:07:33] I believe that it's in our best interest to have both lots with that additional note that's missing and the house as a part.

[2:07:50] Thank you, Mayor.

[2:07:53] So I don't believe Mr. Conkel, you're bringing the house subject forward tonight for discussion.

[2:07:59] That was, no, I did not, I think.

[2:08:03] So just to clarify, Commissioner Smith, that was my air on the blue line.

[2:08:09] It should have followed the cliff line around the corner to the piece that we're talking about at

[2:08:15] the center street, so that was my mapping air, when I put that together.

[2:08:20] The house piece that I'm talking about is tax lot 1700.

[2:08:24] 100. That's it's right off of first street. First street. It was demolished.

[2:08:37] That's the one

[2:08:38] that I'm talking about. That was purchased by the utility funds and in my understanding was,

[2:08:45] you know, we wanted to look at it, you know, is there another way to access it off first street

[2:08:48] because of topography, there's not.

[2:08:51] The house that you're talking about, Commissioner Smith,

[2:08:54] I think that there's probably more discussion

[2:08:56] because I understand you're concerned.

[2:08:58] It's the same concern we had for vehicular access

[2:09:01] when you right go up that road.

[2:09:03] Should we do a lot of my,

[2:09:05] should we do a lot of my job?

[2:09:09] Sorry, sorry, go ahead.

[2:09:10] I'll stop.

[2:09:11] Why don't it time, please,

[2:09:15] Mr. Cogel?

[2:09:16] Okay, so the house I think is another

[2:09:20] discussion whether we should do a little bit of a lot, I mean, there's significant

[2:09:23] topography challenges there, even doing a lot line with the house of retaining walls

[2:09:30] being needed in order to move that road over to make it a little bit wider, but that is

[2:09:34] the only access because of the cliff face along South Center.

[2:09:39] There is no other realistic vehicular access there, but that house was also bought with utility

[2:09:46] funds and I think the appraisal handed up around $5.25. I can look exactly, but I guess I just

[2:09:54] like to understand if the commission really wants to include the house as part of the part of the

[2:10:06] Okay. So, for where I'm willing to go tonight, I think that that house at the one that Commissioner Smith is talking about is kind of a separate conversation of what to do with it. I think we can move forward with all the other other other items. My question is how much are the utility funds for tax lot 1700 that we need to reimburse and we're going to be able to do that.

[2:10:29] Where are those funds coming from?

[2:10:34] I'm sorry, I was just looking for the purchase price in 19, I'm sorry, the public works

[2:10:41] department in January of 18, 2006, the commission approved the purchase of that property at $154,000

[2:10:50] plus $1350,000 miscellaneous closing costs, so it was a total of $155,350.

[2:10:57] 50. You know I do need to talk to Bill a little bit if do we do we do we apply 14 years

[2:11:06] of inflation you know we use the current value. It's not a bill a lot.

[2:11:13] Understood and you know there may be that it's actually the appraised value or is it reimbursement

[2:11:18] and there are a variety of different ways that could be done and that's something we haven't

[2:11:22] looked at. So we're not sure of the funds where they would how much it would be and

[2:11:27] and where those funds are coming forward

[2:11:29] to include this life.

[2:11:30] And we purchased it, it had a house on it.

[2:11:33] Right, right.

[2:11:34] And we've demolished the house.

[2:11:35] So obviously the appraised value is gonna be less

[2:11:39] cause it would just be raw land

[2:11:40] with access issues potentially.

[2:11:43] Right.

[2:11:44] But I'm imagining it's somewhere in that,

[2:11:46] you know, in a minimum, reimbursing,

[2:11:48] what was paid for from the utility at a minimum.

[2:11:53] And then where it would come from,

[2:12:00] We have lots of requests for general fund expenditures these days, so it needs to come into the equation.

[2:12:07] I'm supportive of it, so you have a list of items in your staff report where you're asking for direction, so I can tell you where I'm at on this.

[2:12:17] I support that tax lot 1700, assuming we can work out the utility funds and

[2:12:23] where that, how that's going to be reimbursed to the utility fund.

[2:12:30] So I would love, I think that tax lot should go into the charter park.

[2:12:35] Tax lot 400 is the armory building.

[2:12:37] I think that tax lot should go into the charter park.

[2:12:42] I'm concerned about the order of things, so I want to make sure we deal with the

[2:12:45] a dare buildings and make sure we get that correct, but in order to do that, I think the next step is to work on the tax line, tax line adjustment.

[2:12:57] And so I'm supportive of Mr. Buses drawing, which is similar to yours just missing that one piece down on South Center Street.

[2:13:08] I will say, when I talked to John Lewis, I went out and did another tour of this site.

[2:13:21] Tony, you and I and John Lewis went out, because I wanted to re-walk it, re-talk about all the buildings that were there.

[2:13:29] where you know, refresh my memory of all the intricacies of the property.

[2:13:38] And part of what we've been dealing with from public works since John Lewis isn't here

[2:13:44] tonight.

[2:13:44] I'll say, we haven't quite figured out where all of that stuff is going to go.

[2:13:50] There is stuff on that property that is actively being used, yes, it is cleaned up, it has

[2:13:57] a variety of uses. One of the compromises that, you know, we were all standing around kind

[2:14:02] of brainstorming what we could do with this property. I do like the one thing that is part

[2:14:09] of this whole first street and moving up to first street and all of that conversation

[2:14:13] is this merging of our parks department and public works. And we haven't yet figured out where all

[2:14:20] of the parks equipment is going to go yet. And I know that this commission has had several conversations

[2:14:26] about that. So I will say, and I just want to be very transparent with everybody that one of the solutions

[2:14:33] that we kind of talked about, I don't remember who mentioned it, but I thought it was a great idea was that if this does become

[2:14:39] park property, like we're talking about,

[2:14:42] it could perhaps solve some of our facility issues of putting parks equipment on a park property because that is allowed.

[2:14:50] Parks could use some of that building or store equipment there.

[2:14:54] If we want to move this forward without solving all of our other issues, that's the

[2:15:00] The only way I can get there because we have other issues that we're trying to solve. And they're not solved yet. And so we're trying to move this forward and support the community. Just know that we could swap out some of that public work stuff and it could become a storage area for some park stuff because, like I said, we haven't resolved all of that. And that is within the allowable uses of park property. And so with that, I will say, you know, obviously, I just want to be transparent about that.

[2:15:29] that and that we have other issues that haven't been solved yet but we are trying to move

[2:15:34] this forward and we want to move it forward so that could be an interim solution and a

[2:15:39] good compromise.

[2:15:42] That is where I'm at and I'm willing to make a motion on that.

[2:15:46] Mr. O'Donnell, there's some clarification that I'm not talking about a lot of 1700, I understand

[2:15:54] that the access that comes in off of South End Road past the house that we own.

[2:16:00] Are we going to have to do a lot of line adjustment or partition off that road so that

[2:16:05] becomes part of the park for future access?

[2:16:10] I think that the question is, well, it's

[2:16:15] the road and is primarily within a right of way, but it's very, very narrow around that 90 degree

[2:16:25] return because so we would have to do some work to look at what can we, is there anything

[2:16:33] that we can do with that house to get us some additional property and still meet zoning

[2:16:39] requirements for a lot size to allow some additional space. I would not recommend making

[2:16:46] it part of the park. It would realistically, it would probably be more appropriate as right

[2:16:50] of way. I would like to say something, Mr. Mayor, please.

[2:16:56] Commissioner Smith.

[2:17:03] If the Commissioner McGriff wants to go first, that's fine. I just,

[2:17:06] I had my hand up. It's a long thing what Mr. Conkel was saying about the access.

[2:17:13] Okay. So just real quickly, the one issue with that access is that they were looking at widening

[2:17:19] it so that there could be truck access up there. I don't know if we need to have access for trucks,

[2:17:25] if it's going to be used as a park, people could access it by vehicle from the other direction,

[2:17:32] and that could be a pedestrian-only access way to walk up there.

[2:17:36] There's certainly. Yeah. And that way that retaining wall is literally right on the edge,

[2:17:42] and there is really no way to move it. I knew the former residents and spent quite a bit of time

[2:17:46] up there, and we stood there many a day looking at that, and it was when the public works trucks came

[2:17:52] up there that they almost hit the wall every time but that wall cannot be moved.

[2:17:57] It is there's nothing else holding it up except that right.

[2:18:00] So I think trying to widen it or do anything else to provide you can get up there with

[2:18:04] I mean I can get up there with my Subaru.

[2:18:06] If you had something bigger than that there's no you can't really do it and make the turn.

[2:18:11] So I would not want to suggest that we do any lot line adjustment because like you said

[2:18:15] it is right away we do already own it and future park planning for that could look at that

[2:18:21] But I would not recommend knowing what I know about the geotech in that area. I would not recommend us even touching that

[2:18:30] We'd be asking for more harm than good. I'm

[2:18:38] okay. Maybe to

[2:18:44] say is I

[2:18:48] is

[2:18:49] Jesse's still on the phone or Cameron or Commissioner McGriff might have the answer to this question too

[2:18:59] One of the comments made was that

[2:19:03] Kind of implies that McLaughlin neighborhood doesn't compromise. They sure do

[2:19:09] And they sure do a lot.

[2:19:11] In fact, I believe that the Glouffle neighborhood

[2:19:14] is pretty dang patient, if I might add,

[2:19:19] on all of these on this specific topic.

[2:19:22] One concession that they've already made, I believe,

[2:19:26] was the whole conversation about the adair buildings.

[2:19:30] Now, we did get an email from Jim Nassita

[2:19:35] asking about the adair buildings, but my memories

[2:19:38] was that we kind of had a discussion about those

[2:19:43] that there would be reuse of the buildings

[2:19:47] and there would be a process to go through

[2:19:50] before the buildings were torn down essentially.

[2:19:53] And that's the neighborhood association

[2:19:56] kind of gave the blessing to that.

[2:20:00] You know, kind of as a gesture to move forward to making this a part. That's my, that's my recollection. Is that accurate? I guess just to, I guess just to clarify process is that the process would be we would advertise that anybody who would like to take them. So not a land use process more of a notification process. These are available while we've got the RFP out looking for the demolition contract.

[2:20:30] factor, should no one agree to come take the buildings.

[2:20:34] Then if that happens, the time passes of when they were available.

[2:20:38] We would move forward with the demolition of the buildings.

[2:20:40] Prior to that, we would document the buildings.

[2:20:43] That's the process that I'm talking about.

[2:20:47] Mr. Conkel, just as a point of order.

[2:20:50] So if the buildings are demolished, can we put in the ad that it's deconstruction?

[2:20:57] I already know some people who've talked to me already.

[2:20:59] they want some parts of it, but they're not demolition contractors.

[2:21:02] They would like some pieces off of it and if we had a contractor who would be willing

[2:21:05] to take those pieces off and people take it away, that would be another issue.

[2:21:11] Commissioner Gritz?

[2:21:14] I think she already went.

[2:21:16] We can certainly talk.

[2:21:18] It's additional expense for the buildings.

[2:21:23] That wouldn't get crunched in the room.

[2:21:24] Commissioner Gritz?

[2:21:25] Yes, sir.

[2:21:25] I

[2:21:28] know that a dare foundation has said they would like to have some pieces of the buildings

[2:21:37] if they came down.

[2:21:38] I think they were talking about roof struts and some other things.

[2:21:43] Certainly, I would be supportive of that kind of thing, you know, rejuvenation, house

[2:21:49] park, somebody else, you know, other historical folks who do that kind of thing.

[2:21:55] I would be happy if they were want to do that at their expense. I wouldn't want it to be at the city.

[2:22:01] No, it wouldn't be at the city's expense. I agree with you would be at their expense.

[2:22:14] One more question.

[2:22:17] If we gave direction for staff to move forward on the lot line adjustments.

[2:22:24] What would be the timeline for that coming back? I want to really know what the timeline would be

[2:22:34] make a motion to make those

[2:22:39] officially, are we talking a week

[2:22:42] from now, two weeks from now, a month

[2:22:44] from now, what would be the time

[2:22:46] line in having that piece ready so

[2:22:49] that we could move forward on

[2:22:51] designating this as a part?

[2:22:53] I think it all did.

[2:22:55] So a couple of things.

[2:22:56] I put in the, got a higher

[2:22:59] in consultant to help us.

[2:23:01] We have to survey the property,

[2:23:03] redo lot lines.

[2:23:05] We're going to have to determine, you know, if they work with Laura, why I put in their

[2:23:09] lot line or partition, and I'm going to get a little wonky here, but you used to be able

[2:23:13] to go to Clackmas County Tax Assessor and record a taxing lot versus a legal tax lot.

[2:23:21] So just, you know, the want to make sure that I have a legal tax lot to do a lot line adjustment

[2:23:26] off.

[2:23:27] If these were just recorded, we're going to have to determine whether they're actual

[2:23:31] legal lots of which, if that's not the case, I have to do a partition, which is going

[2:23:38] to take a little bit longer.

[2:23:41] But Commissioner Smith, this is going to take probably five to six months.

[2:23:47] By the time I get a consultant, get surveys, get legals drawn up.

[2:23:52] If we do a lot line adjustment, the city reviews it, approves the lot line adjustment, that needs

[2:23:58] It needs to be taken to the recorder and recorded at Clack Miss County.

[2:24:02] Partition, same kind of process, except for then we go through a land use process to partition it.

[2:24:08] So we've got public notice, type two staff report, potential appeal, then that needs to be recorded as well.

[2:24:15] So we can get it moving.

[2:24:18] It's just there's some unknowns in terms of timing, getting surveys, it's not a small survey.

[2:24:25] identifying that line across the top.

[2:24:30] So my best guess is probably five to six

[2:24:33] months. They're like November. So my worry about that is this, you know, we

[2:24:39] definitely need the answers to those before we designate this officially as a

[2:24:43] park. I've already made the motion in the past to do so. We have waited so long to

[2:24:50] kind of have these conversations, are there any way that short of actually does-

[2:25:00] So, I think we're going to have a meeting in a park that we make some sort of resolution or statement that the intention in intention,

[2:25:14] that this would be

[2:25:19] insurance, so that

[2:25:25] a timeline that's posed

[2:25:37] because actually we let commission members speak before I did. Yes, go ahead, Mr. Please.

[2:25:49] My point is, we're not going to, we as a commission have a consensus that it sounds to me tonight that this is going to be a bar.

[2:25:59] So I want to be clear that the intention is that and I don't care how long it takes to go through the legalities of it.

[2:26:09] We want to assure the public this is going to be a part and and put that question to an end and then we can officially designate it once we have the documents we need but I don't want this continued another year or two years or hundred years.

[2:26:26] What was that not the intent of my initial motion which was saying I'm trying to wrap this

[2:26:35] all up into one one ball that we can get this done.

[2:26:38] So I said upon the completion of the lot line adjustment or necessary partitions upon

[2:26:45] the removal of the air building of

[2:26:50] the armory property and upon completion and review of

[2:26:55] public opinion, whether that takes the form of advisory vote or whatever, then the motion would be to add the upper yard and

[2:27:02] designate the upper yard as part of Water Board Park. Commissioner, does that not accomplish what we wanted to do?

[2:27:10] Not the last thing.

[2:27:13] What part doesn't? I'd like to hear the conversation.

[2:27:17] Commissioner O'Donnell, I concur. Well, I also like the statement that Commissioner Laosmith said about

[2:27:23] We can look at an interim use there for the parks department.

[2:27:27] I think that's an excellent idea.

[2:27:29] I don't, we already have the recommendation from the PrAC.

[2:27:33] I don't want to, this, I think having the resolution not take effect until we have the vote of public opinion.

[2:27:40] I think that's for a master planning process.

[2:27:42] And I would concur with everything you said, but I would like you to remove the last statement.

[2:27:47] I think we have our prac that will run through a process with what the programming will be for the park, but I don't think that should hold it up.

[2:27:59] And I actually entered that hydraulic mission in the efforts to form a mayor's neilies input.

[2:28:06] I concur with everything he said except that.

[2:28:09] Yes, sir.

[2:28:12] Can you read the statement from Carl Laws, the chair of the Park Hills neighbors decision?

[2:28:28] It's not attached.

[2:28:29] Hold on a second.

[2:28:31] Did we get something from Berkeley Hills?

[2:28:36] Yes, we did.

[2:28:38] Let's do this.

[2:28:47] Mr. Mayor, are you asking us to read it into the record?

[2:28:49] Yeah, hold on.

[2:28:50] I'm going to pull it up so everyone can just see it here.

[2:28:52] Yes, ma'am.

[2:29:03] I didn't get it in purpose.

[2:29:08] Okay, attention city commission wanted to make another statement to endorse the Water Board upper parking lot to be added into Water Board Park.

[2:29:20] Previously, I have endorsed this because my own interests and concerns for the community, searching this further, researching this further, I am concerned how it impacts my neighborhood, Barkley Hills.

[2:29:33] As I have mentioned before, this park, this park, yeah, neighbors Barclay Hills, the east

[2:29:42] side entrance near Quarry Street, Third Street, Oak Street and East Street. Personally,

[2:29:49] I think the community itself and neighborhoods surrounding Waterward Park should be included

[2:29:56] in the decision process.

[2:29:57] It is concerning much...

[2:30:00] The public is unaware of what is happening and had no opportunity to give feedback as a CIC volunteer. Other than neighborhood associations, it is very difficult to reach the public. Only CIC members who

[2:30:19] utilize social media are able to communicate to residents who use it. Many of our residents are not on social media, not technologically savvy.

[2:30:29] and neighborhood meetings may be too difficult to attend.

[2:30:33] I've talked to a few of these folks and from who, from what I am hearing, are interested in Water Board Park and Water Board Upper Parking Lot.

[2:30:45] Barkley Hills Neighborhood Association is scheduled to vote on this July 14th, 2020, whether to endorse this.

[2:30:54] Our steering committee feels it is important our residents have a say on our neighborhood park.

[2:31:03] It is concerning to use this area other than a park.

[2:31:10] It has never earned property tax revenue and it is an area that the geography is unstable.

[2:31:18] the target the tragedy for me is if this land is used for anything else other

[2:31:26] than a park Oregon City will lose all opportunity in this area for the

[2:31:31] community thank you for your time and hours you volunteer investing in

[2:31:38] Oregon City. I'd like to make a motion.

[2:31:51] Mayor is muted.

[2:31:54] I was going to try to get

[2:31:55] your language in there. I'm going to try to get your language.

[2:32:04] Mayor are you there?

[2:32:05] here. You're muted. I heard something click off like a phone.

[2:32:09] I mean, one option would be instead of listing the particular

[2:32:17] concern or steps that has to go to just have a motion that it is the

[2:32:22] sense of the commission that the upper yard be designated a charter park

[2:32:27] in the future. Once all necessary steps are taken to have to allow

[2:32:32] this to be accomplished or something that's simple and you know because I think what I'm

[2:32:36] here in the commission says there are a number of preliminary steps we've got to deal through.

[2:32:41] But right now the sense of the commission is we want this to be a charter park. Is that a fair?

[2:32:46] It's close enough that I want it. I like this with the city manager stated here is that once the

[2:32:52] partition or a lot of line adjustments completed in ordinance designating the applicable tax

[2:32:56] that would be brought forward for, I want that in there.

[2:32:59] Okay.

[2:33:02] We'd stop for one sec.

[2:33:04] Yeah.

[2:33:04] We lost.

[2:33:05] We lost them there.

[2:33:14] Testing.

[2:33:15] Can you hear me now?

[2:33:20] Rocky, can you hear me?

[2:33:27] Here's Frank.

[2:33:29] So Mayor Holidays says that.

[2:33:34] Can you hear me?

[2:33:35] Testing.

[2:33:35] Can you hear me?

[2:33:39] So they're saying that they can hear.

[2:33:42] They can hear on zoom, but they cannot hear anything that's

[2:33:45] going on in the room.

[2:33:46] So if something just happened with the audio, I know I heard something go like a phone

[2:33:52] got hurt or something.

[2:33:53] That's what I heard just before.

[2:34:00] Blues, I can try recalling, I don't know.

[2:34:03] I can hang up and try.

[2:34:08] Katie is going to try.

[2:34:17] Branks muted anyway.

[2:34:19] I think we're close to making an emotion to wrap up this item.

[2:34:33] We love technology.

[2:34:36] Works every time, doesn't it?

[2:34:37] Welcome to Zoom.

[2:34:38] Enter your meeting ID followed by pound.

[2:34:43] Katie is trying to reconnect audio right now.

[2:34:56] Enter your participant ID followed by pound.

[2:35:00] Otherwise, just press, please enter

[2:35:07] the meeting password, followed by pound.

[2:35:16] You are in the meeting now. There are nine participants in the meeting. You are

[2:35:27] muted. You can mute or unmute yourself by pressing star six.

[2:35:39] You are unmuted. Can you hear me now? Yeah, yeah, finally, sorry about that. I don't know what happened. Get hung up on us.

[2:35:52] Okay, so let's go again Katie go ahead and read the letter that was really hard for me

[2:36:03] to get through I'm sorry I'm not an extremely great reader so I can show it on the screen

[2:36:08] again you can read it or someone else to read it please don't read it again.

[2:36:19] I'm going to be right in the record.

[2:36:21] She read it into the record mayor.

[2:36:23] We were sitting here listening to anybody who was watching on Zoom.

[2:36:29] The touching city commission wanted to make another statement to endorse the water board

[2:36:32] upper parking lot to be added into water board park.

[2:36:35] Previously, I've endorsed this because of my own interest and concerns for the community.

[2:36:39] Researching this further, I am concerned how it impacts my neighborhood, Parkly Hills.

[2:36:43] As I have mentioned before, this park neighbor's Parkly Hills, the east side entrance near Quarry

[2:36:46] Street, Third Street, Oak Street, East Street.

[2:36:49] Personally, I think the community itself, and

[2:36:51] neighborhoods surrounding Waterport Park should be included in the decision process.

[2:36:55] It is concerning much of the public is unaware of what is happening and

[2:36:59] had no opportunity to give feedback as a CIC volunteer.

[2:37:02] Other than neighborhood associations, it is very difficult to reach the public.

[2:37:06] Only CIC members who utilize social media are able to communicate to residents who use it.

[2:37:10] Many of our residents are not on social media, and that's technologically savvy.

[2:37:14] And neighborhood meetings may be difficult to attend.

[2:37:16] And I've talked to a few of these folks, and for what I am hearing, are interested in Water Board Park and Water Board Parking Lot.

[2:37:24] Parking Hills Neighborhood Association scheduled to vote on this July 14, 2020, whether to endorse this.

[2:37:29] Our Steering Committee feels it's important our residents have a say in our neighborhood park.

[2:37:34] It is concerning to use this area other than a park.

[2:37:38] It has never earned property tax revenue and it is an area that the geography is unstable.

[2:37:43] the tragedy for me is if this land is used for anything else other than a park

[2:37:48] Oregon City will lose all opportunity in this area for the community thank

[2:37:51] you for your time in the hours you volunteer investing in Oregon City since

[2:37:54] early Carla laws.

[2:37:58] Did you did you hear that? Thank you sir yeah so I didn't see

[2:38:06] anybody else's hand it up so I'm gonna say what I'm gonna say and that is that I

[2:38:11] agree with this law is that we haven't had a community-wide a citywide

[2:38:16] discussion about this land. We've had, you know, some discussions in Prague and

[2:38:23] city commission and some other places, but a couple of years ago, we had our

[2:38:29] our commission thing

[2:38:35] of public process about this park, just like we talked

[2:38:40] about just when we had a public process talking about the library and the

[2:38:45] and libraries go, we have not had that yet.

[2:38:49] And just because one area of the city should be a park

[2:38:55] doesn't change the fact that this has got a value

[2:38:59] of at least a couple of million dollars

[2:39:02] that could reduce the park's maintenance budget

[2:39:06] in other parks in the city.

[2:39:08] And if we talk about park place, which has almost no parks

[2:39:11] and in other areas of the city, as they develop

[2:39:14] and we, you know, obviously talked to our item about not doing an SEC in the

[2:39:23] Democrat plan. I think honestly that we should ask all of the citizens of Oregon City about

[2:39:33] what we should do about this. And we have an opportunity coming up in November that we could ask

[2:39:39] that says the question do we want to get this over to a park or do we want to spend the money or

[2:39:48] we want to take the money that we could get from this and do the deferred mains in other places

[2:39:54] in our city.

[2:39:58] I'm not saying I believe

[2:40:03] We have a discussion that we have not had to be quiet yet. And there will be arguments that, you know, this person or that person or this group or that person about this.

[2:40:42] We've been talking about it for 10 years in this community. So there's been gaps in between and different plans in between. But clearly watching that video in the history of the city. There's lots of references to this always have been a part. Now, we can debate the legalities and all that. I only want to go there.

[2:41:01] The fact is that we know exactly what the mayor wants to do here and he's been delaying this for years.

[2:41:09] Now, it's interesting that he uses one of his biggest critics letter as a support for his basis of a public process.

[2:41:20] When in fact, even in her letters, she says it shouldn't be anything other than a park.

[2:41:24] I mean, it's ridiculous.

[2:41:26] And then one public comment tonight

[2:41:28] is from someone that sleeps with the mayor.

[2:41:32] You know, it's like the last meeting that's called for sure.

[2:41:35] Well, that is absolutely uncalled for.

[2:41:38] I'm just saying, no, that's uncalled for.

[2:41:41] Well, I'm just saying that had public comment last meeting

[2:41:48] and the only person to speak against all the other citizens

[2:41:52] was Betty Mom.

[2:41:54] and tonight she does that again and nobody else has come

[2:42:04] to us

[2:42:07] commission about this topic.

[2:42:09] You know, we're not designated in a park tonight. That wasn't what we were doing. We're moving

[2:42:13] forward and doing more outlines, okay? So I don't know what you're talking about. The consensus

[2:42:21] there's a consensus already on the commission as there wasn't the last meeting and you continue

[2:42:26] to delay it.

[2:42:29] Well, you're welcome to your opinion, sir. But I'm not trying to lay it. What I'm saying

[2:42:33] is that, oh my gosh, you know, you and Commissioner Griff, and in fact, all of us have said that we want

[2:42:42] to hear what the citizens of Oregon City say about this, and we haven't heard that yet. We've heard from

[2:42:48] you know, activists and neighbors associations. We haven't heard from the average citizen,

[2:42:54] and we have an opportunity to

[2:42:56] remember that wouldn't cost anything.

[2:43:04] I'd like to make a motion.

[2:43:06] I'm going to make a motion.

[2:43:07] I would like to make a motion.

[2:43:10] If any one person

[2:43:17] in the commission

[2:43:19] chambers are on the commission right now

[2:43:21] that the majority of the

[2:43:23] community does not agree

[2:43:24] speaks for them.

[2:43:26] It doesn't represent them.

[2:43:27] We clearly know that.

[2:43:29] And so right now,

[2:43:31] us, you know, continuing to base this as ridiculous. I would like to make a motion to move forward

[2:43:39] with a lot of line adjustments and basically the motion that Commissioner O'Donnell was going to make.

[2:43:58] Your muted second is motion, but it needs further definition.

[2:44:03] I'm

[2:44:07] trying to summarize here that Commissioner McGriff, what did you say?

[2:44:11] I said I'd like to second the motion but it needs a little further definition and I'd like

[2:44:15] to ask Mr. Conkel to summarize because it's in the staff report.

[2:44:22] Okay, before we do that, Commissioner O'Donnell, I made the motion twice and I guess the only

[2:44:29] question is, the only thing that was objected to was the addition of the public opinion

[2:44:38] or advisory vote and I can read my motion in its entirety again and I'm I need to make

[2:44:45] sure that it's everyone understands it so should I read it one more time? I have to ask

[2:44:51] a question that your motion get a second because I don't remember that. No it did not. It did not

[2:44:56] get a second. All right, the world in Christmas.

[2:45:00] The motion is on the floor and it has a second, minus some kind of confusion. So, Commissioner Griff. I was just asking Mr. Conkel to summarize, but I agree with Mr. Gabisman that we make a motion to, it is our intent to designate this area as part of Water Board Park. I would like to add to suggest a Commissioner Smith that we add item one, item two, item three, and item four as specified in the

[2:45:30] the city manager staff report

[2:45:42] because commissioner Smith referenced what I put forward. I don't know

[2:45:48] if he wants to do it as an entirety or exclude some portion of the motion that I put forward.

[2:45:54] So the motion that was made by Commissioner Smith was moved forward with a lot of line

[2:45:59] adjustment with the portions of the motion from Commissioner O'Donnell that received a second

[2:46:04] and is currently on the floor. Commissioner McGriff has made another motion.

[2:46:09] No, I just said, is that, are we clarifying that?

[2:46:12] I agree with everything Commissioner O'Donnell said, except for the last part.

[2:46:18] So maybe the thing to do is, City Manager Concord summarized his understanding

[2:46:24] of Commissioner Smith's motion, which incorporated Commissioner O'Donnell's motion.

[2:46:29] Go ahead.

[2:46:29] And the motion are in second, can determine if they agree.

[2:46:32] Right, perfect.

[2:46:33] The motion would include that staff will move forward to hire a consultant, prepare a partition

[2:46:37] in our lot line adjustment of tax law 500, tax law 1700 will be included in the property.

[2:46:46] And the utility funds will be reimbursed,

[2:46:51] the armory building will be included in the charter park.

[2:46:55] Whether it's under ownership or at a future date, upon ownership of by the city.

[2:47:02] You mean the art rate lot, because the building's gone.

[2:47:08] Once the lot line adjustment is completed, an ordinance designated in the applicable tax

[2:47:13] lots will be brought forward for commission consideration.

[2:47:17] Staff understands that the bear buildings must be demolished or withheld from designation

[2:47:22] as a charter park. It is not the commission's intention to retain the two buildings.

[2:47:30] Smith, I can't see your hand raised, so do you have any force?

[2:47:36] No, I agree with Mr. Conkel's summary, so I think the question goes to the motionor

[2:47:41] and the seconder is to whether or not they agree that that was their motion.

[2:47:46] I agree with you.

[2:47:48] You agree with you, Rocky?

[2:47:50] Is he muted?

[2:47:50] Well, the question is that concern, the Commissioner McGriff, was the public process or whatever.

[2:47:58] That's not in there.

[2:47:58] Okay, so I'm and then but you want something the intent was that also this is that the intention is this will be a part.

[2:48:10] Yes.

[2:48:12] So I concur with everything city manager said.

[2:48:16] Yes,

[2:48:20] find it amazing that every commissioner up here has encouraged public involvement.

[2:48:24] but until this moment where we don't want it.

[2:48:29] And I struggled with that.

[2:48:31] That's not true.

[2:48:33] I was not at the time.

[2:48:35] Please let commissioners all finish and save it.

[2:48:39] The only part of my motion that was not approved

[2:48:43] was the part to set upon completion review

[2:48:45] of a public opinion or advisory vote.

[2:48:48] And that was the part that no one wanted to include the motion.

[2:48:52] and advisory vote from who we've already got one from Pratt.

[2:49:00] This is asking Commissioner O'Donnell

[2:49:03] what he's referring to, what advisory position,

[2:49:07] where is he, where is he, want that from?

[2:49:10] I think, and I'm asking you, I'm asking Commissioner O'Donnell.

[2:49:14] Well, I'm sorry, but I'm still the mayor,

[2:49:17] and I think that we should put it out for an advisory vote

[2:49:22] in November to hear what the citizens think

[2:49:25] about whether we make this park or whether you take the two of that million dollars and we use it to further.

[2:49:32] I'd like to call for a point of order.

[2:49:35] I'd like to call for a point of order.

[2:49:37] Excuse me.

[2:49:41] Didn't interrupted Mr. O'Donnell.

[2:49:43] He was asked a question and you preceded him without letting him answer.

[2:49:47] So I'm calling a point of public procedure.

[2:49:51] Mr. O'Donnell, I was honoring the input by former Mayor Neely.

[2:49:57] Go ahead.

[2:50:00] This is sought public input, and by the neighborhood, most adjacent to the park, the sought public input. And I'd like to hear from my listeners individually if they want to include or exclude that in the motion.

[2:50:22] This is not a neighborhood decision. This is a citywide decision. We're talking million dollars that go to birth maintenance. And, and at the same time, start to help solve our

[2:50:38] low-income housing problem. No it isn't. That's the question. No it is not. I would add to the

[2:50:46] conversation that we customarily do not have citizens vote on the purchase of park land.

[2:50:54] So how does that differ? Well I don't disagree with you sir but the fact is it's been a wide-ranging

[2:51:02] discussion for a while and it's a big decision for the city and I don't know

[2:51:09] that it hurts. Is he way in

[2:51:16] question?

[2:51:20] Commissioner O'Donnell if into

[2:51:27] this

[2:51:27] motion a public process to get input from the adjoining neighborhoods to the

[2:51:33] park would that be sufficient?

[2:51:38] That's the most important part because it impacts

[2:51:40] them directly. It sounds like they're in favor of it.

[2:51:45] Again, I fall back in a part that we do not ask the public

[2:51:49] and avoid you side to purchase Parkland.

[2:51:51] I know that, so then I don't understand

[2:51:53] why you're not supporting this motion.

[2:51:55] So if the confession is that you want more input,

[2:51:59] what do you want that from?

[2:52:01] The public lacks us.

[2:52:03] So if we're in a stagnant place right now with this motion,

[2:52:07] so I need to know from you, what does it take you to support it?

[2:52:12] I'd like to hear if I could join the Neighborhood Association at Penn that letter.

[2:52:18] So moved.

[2:52:20] We already have a motion on the floor and I'll remove it.

[2:52:24] I will remove it and make the motion with the additional addition of the neighborhood

[2:52:30] associations connected to the park.

[2:52:32] I'm not withdrawing my second.

[2:52:34] So rather than remove the motion, one thing you could do is if the person who made the

[2:52:40] and the second or both agree to a friendly amendment,

[2:52:42] that could be done.

[2:52:45] That's what I'm asking for.

[2:52:47] I

[2:52:51] feel that we have had a lot of input on this,

[2:52:54] not from special interests, but from individual citizens.

[2:52:58] Barkley Hills has had a chance to weigh in on this.

[2:53:01] And his laws has weighed in on this.

[2:53:04] I would between now and the time we get the ordinance,

[2:53:07] if people from Barkley Hills want to come in

[2:53:09] or send in information to us about how they feel about it,

[2:53:12] I think that would be a good thing to do in the interim.

[2:53:15] I don't want to hold this up for yet another process, as Mr. Smith said, this has been

[2:53:21] 10 years.

[2:53:22] I don't want this to turn into another ermuching or house.

[2:53:25] Where nothing ever happens, because we have people who all of a sudden decide they want

[2:53:30] to have a public process, when they've publicly stated they don't like public processes.

[2:53:35] So.

[2:53:36] So it appears the friendly amendment failed.

[2:53:38] Well, I didn't say that.

[2:53:39] I didn't say that.

[2:53:40] I just said.

[2:53:41] I don't think so.

[2:53:42] I'm interested in hearing from people.

[2:53:45] We have been talking about this and talking about this.

[2:53:48] I understand sometimes people are not technologically involved

[2:53:52] in stuff.

[2:53:56] Maybe we can send something, pardon?

[2:53:59] Then we need to hear from Commissioner Lyle Smith,

[2:54:02] where we're basically waiting to find out how to move forward.

[2:54:06] So given several concessions already, I'm OK with your motion.

[2:54:10] If it doesn't delay the process,

[2:54:12] I'm okay with your amendment. If it doesn't delay getting this designated as a park. I'm not willing to wait till November.

[2:54:20] I'm clearly I'm not either. I want to hear from Commissioner Lyle Smith.

[2:54:26] What's your last name?

[2:54:28] To just make sure. So was that amendment made or not?

[2:54:34] He wants to hear from the floor at this point.

[2:54:38] He wants to hear from Commissioner Lowell Smith.

[2:54:42] So, I understand all of the points, what everybody's been saying.

[2:54:48] I do believe this project's been going on for a very long time.

[2:54:54] I do not feel like, I think we have a lot of work.

[2:55:00] I would like to do and months and months of work to do before we ever get to actually designating this as a park. Our intention is to designate it as a park. We, I think all of our commission up four out of the five commissioners have declared an intent for us to eventually get to it being a park.

[2:55:18] I would like to see some public outreach, I mean, if we've got six months before we're

[2:55:26] going to finish this up, there's a lot that's got to happen.

[2:55:28] I don't think there's any harm in actually putting out a survey, you know, it takes little

[2:55:35] effort to put out a survey and put it on our website and say, you know, that would be

[2:55:42] a compromise.

[2:55:42] I understand Commissioner Smith's position.

[2:55:46] it's like, well, if we want public comment, if it's just that we need to get information

[2:55:50] from the neighborhoods, then we can get information from the neighborhoods in the next couple

[2:55:55] of months that should not be a problem, but I don't want to hold up this process.

[2:55:59] I think they're all supportive of it, and I think we should move forward.

[2:56:07] Mayor,

[2:56:10] I would hope that this, I would hope that Commissioner Loughless would make a motion,

[2:56:15] or somebody else. I will agree to your amendment so we can vote.

[2:56:19] I will agree to your amendments so we can vote.

[2:56:25] And the amendment, please.

[2:56:29] I believe the addition that Mr. Smith said was he wanted to have additional input

[2:56:34] from the adjoining neighborhood association that abuts it.

[2:56:38] So we've got Rivercress, McLaughlin, and Barkley Hills at abut this park.

[2:56:46] I can't support that because I think the parks in Oregon City belong to everyone in Oregon City.

[2:56:53] Not just the abutting.

[2:56:55] I have a vote.

[2:57:04] Yes.

[2:57:04] All for the question.

[2:57:06] There is a comment still.

[2:57:09] The question is called color roll.

[2:57:11] I have a comment before the question.

[2:57:14] I'll withdraw.

[2:57:15] Call for the question is not available, sir.

[2:57:18] I withdraw it.

[2:57:24] Mr. Smith.

[2:57:26] What

[2:57:29] happens when we have no confidence in our mayor?

[2:57:34] This is crazy.

[2:57:36] We clearly have a consensus on the commission to move forward.

[2:57:42] and the mayor has been able to throw a wrench into it,

[2:57:46] and spiral this meeting into chaos.

[2:57:48] We're

[2:57:51] going to do this for two more years.

[2:57:53] I apologize for exercising my right of free speech,

[2:57:57] but the fact is that there's a motion on the floor.

[2:58:01] Oh, well, so now you're running to me.

[2:58:03] So the point is, is that, you know,

[2:58:06] obviously it's not OK.

[2:58:08] It's not OK to confess this, because if we had a contest,

[2:58:11] Yes, we'll be done with this finance.

[2:58:16] Roll, please.

[2:58:18] Commissioner Rachel Laosmith.

[2:58:20] Aye.

[2:58:21] Commissioner Rocky Smith.

[2:58:24] Commissioner Frank O'Donnell.

[2:58:26] Aye.

[2:58:27] Commissioner Denise McGriff.

[2:58:29] Aye.

[2:58:30] Mayor Dan Holliday.

[2:58:42] Most 20 minutes passed our normal time to make a decision

[2:58:45] about moving on to the folks wanting to continue

[2:58:50] on with the agenda.

[2:58:51] We're going to move it off to the next meeting.

[2:58:55] Continue on.

[2:58:55] I'd

[2:59:00] like to suggest that we defer item 7-V to the next meeting.

[2:59:07] Partly?

[2:59:08] Yes.

[2:59:12] Yes, so I think if we can get through 7-E and 7-F, we can be done before 10-30.

[2:59:25] I think that's possible.

[2:59:27] Mr. O'Donnell doesn't think so.

[2:59:29] You don't think so, Commissioner O'Donnell?

[2:59:31] I think it's pretty unlikely, too.

[2:59:34] It's the second reason.

[2:59:35] So at this point, Commissioner Lawsmith, I'm going to let you take over the meeting.

[2:59:42] I've got to go lay down.

[2:59:45] Thank you very much.

[2:59:47] Okay.

[2:59:48] Thank you, Mayor.

[2:59:51] So before we make this decision, does anybody have any major communications that are going

[2:59:56] to come up at the end?

[2:59:57] No.

[2:59:57] I do not.

[2:59:59] Mr. Comple, do you have-

[3:00:04] So, my goal is to get out of here by 10-30. Absolutely. So, that gives us 10 minutes. Let's go. Eight minutes with communications. Leave time for a few minutes of communications. So, let's see what we can get through. So, I think we're all in agreement to move 70. Sorry, Mr. Norway. Those parklets are being moved to the next meeting.

[3:00:28] Just to be with that.

[3:00:30] Oh, you don't, you want that's the one you want to talk about?

[3:00:33] Yes, because we just deferred this now two meetings.

[3:00:38] We're not going to get through it by 10.30.

[3:00:40] Well, our businesses are waiting for us to make a decision.

[3:00:43] The Chamber and the downtown have worked very hard on this.

[3:00:48] And this was another delay by the Mayor tonight by pushing that agenda back.

[3:00:52] So I just...

[3:00:54] Do you want to make a motion?

[3:00:58] I move to approve the parklets.

[3:01:01] Second.

[3:01:07] Okay, so is there any discussion or questions?

[3:01:09] I actually have a question real quick on this topic.

[3:01:13] I appreciate the vote.

[3:01:14] I think we can have a discussion quickly.

[3:01:15] Mr. Wei, just to confirm, this will start the temporary parklets,

[3:01:21] but there will be a break and a chance for the commission to come back

[3:01:24] and reevaluate and get input on how it's going

[3:01:28] before we continue on in the calendar, right?

[3:01:31] That is correct.

[3:01:31] Okay. I think it essentially lines with the seasons so once we get through the summer season, we'll be able to bring it back and then we can reevaluate.

[3:01:40] Yeah, that's where we think it's a great idea where it didn't work.

[3:01:44] Yeah, I will say there's lots of concerns about removing more parking from downtown.

[3:01:49] I think we're balancing that we support the sport, the businesses, but there's lots of concerns about parking. Commissioner Smith,

[3:01:59] you have your hand raised?

[3:02:00] Okay,

[3:02:03] Commissioner Donald.

[3:02:07] I have concerns with rushing through this.

[3:02:08] And I have it for a number of reasons.

[3:02:10] I'm concerned about safety matters.

[3:02:11] When we put tables in the parking spaces,

[3:02:14] we've always talked about isolating,

[3:02:17] providing barriers.

[3:02:18] I've got concerns about the combination of this.

[3:02:21] In addition with our sidewalk,

[3:02:23] most of us that we want to do.

[3:02:25] And I've got concerns that part of this

[3:02:26] starts to control private property.

[3:02:29] So those are my concerns.

[3:02:30] I think it's a mistake to rush through this.

[3:02:32] and that's that'll be my stance.

[3:02:42] All right.

[3:02:43] Call the vote.

[3:02:45] Commissioner Rachel Lasneth.

[3:02:49] No.

[3:02:51] Commissioner Frank O'Donnell.

[3:02:54] No.

[3:02:55] Commissioner Rocky Smith.

[3:02:59] Commissioner Denise McGriff.

[3:03:01] Hi.

[3:03:02] So I think this comes back and needs more discussion.

[3:03:06] Is there anything specific you'd like me to include in the next agenda that's not included in this?

[3:03:10] I think we just need time.

[3:03:11] I think we just need the presentation and go through it.

[3:03:14] We'll bring this back to the next commission meeting.

[3:03:16] Yes.

[3:03:16] Thank you.

[3:03:17] I tried to do it on the first place.

[3:03:19] Yes.

[3:03:20] OK.

[3:03:21] Moving on to 7E.

[3:03:22] This is the second reading of ordinance number 20-1006.

[3:03:27] Then we'll create concept plan.

[3:03:29] Code and zoning amendments.

[3:03:31] Thank you.

[3:03:31] There's one item of business that we have to deal with first

[3:03:34] in that in response to a request.

[3:03:36] I sent out an email to the commission.

[3:03:38] The records currently closed.

[3:03:39] So the commission needs to decide if you want to open the record and accept the email or keep the record closed and reject it.

[3:03:49] You'd want to open the record.

[3:03:51] If you want to use it in your decision making, if you don't use it in your decision making, then you can keep it closed.

[3:03:57] I do not want to reopen the record again.

[3:03:59] We opened it once and that's, I've been with it.

[3:04:03] I believe reopening would restart the clock.

[3:04:05] Yeah, yeah, yeah, and in a legislative matter, this would not we'd go back to the first

[3:04:12] three.

[3:04:12] No, it doesn't change the the text of the ordinance at all.

[3:04:20] So it when required restarting that having another first reading.

[3:04:24] Okay.

[3:04:27] Okay.

[3:04:27] So did everybody here, Mr. Kabizman, that we could open the record because this it doesn't

[3:04:33] I have substantive changes to the code of amendments.

[3:04:37] It would not take us back to the first reading.

[3:04:40] We could open the record.

[3:04:42] We could open the record.

[3:04:43] Put it in, close the record.

[3:04:44] Go to your second reading.

[3:04:45] Go to the second reading.

[3:04:46] Commissioner O'Donnell, I would like to hear that.

[3:04:50] I knew and I didn't see it, so.

[3:04:52] Commissioner O'Donnell.

[3:04:56] I posed a question in the last meeting in Mr. Gbos.

[3:05:00] And can you give us the most simplistic answer to? Can we insist upon development of the economic portion of this development prior to the residential? And my concern always is, you know, that was our plan. And now we're going to work face with becoming a bedroom community with no place to work. And everybody traveling and increasingly burden our road system. If you would give us a very read or digest answer to that. I think I'm prepared to move on.

[3:05:29] Commissioner O'Donnell, thank you, I'll try to summarize as best I can.

[3:05:34] I guess the first thing to realize is that the concept bringing concept plan areas into the city is a long iterative process.

[3:05:42] It begins with broad policies and generally narrows down into specifics.

[3:05:46] The city has already adopted the concept plan and the plan doesn't currently impose any of those such limits.

[3:05:52] Some of the area in the land in the area has already been annexed into the city and

[3:05:57] and rezone to allow resident development.

[3:05:59] And so there's some limitations on what we can do given how far into the process we are.

[3:06:05] There are some steps we can take, such as depending on the status of a particular property.

[3:06:09] If there's an annexation proposed, we may be able to take steps to not approve an annexation of land that is

[3:06:18] comprehensive plan designated for residential because of its impacts on adverse effects on economic social physical.

[3:06:25] So the extent property has been annexed but not re-zoned.

[3:06:28] We could possibly not allow the re-zoning, although that would be much better supported

[3:06:36] if we have this type of policy actually adopted into the planned documents.

[3:06:42] And finally, there could be some options with how we invest in public infrastructure and

[3:06:49] where that is provided, but providing infrastructure to this area is already complex.

[3:06:53] And what that would do would not be so much restrict residential,

[3:06:59] to the extent we did it, it would be to incentivize industrial development.

[3:07:03] But once we did that, we wouldn't be able to prevent residential development from taking advantage of the public infrastructure.

[3:07:11] So the answer is, for this purpose of this development, we cannot impose this restriction, but

[3:07:15] we might want to consider it for future developments, would that be accurate?

[3:07:19] I think so, there might be some specific cases.

[3:07:24] Okay, I'm prepared to move on.

[3:07:26] So Commissioner Ardonno, it was your comments that you were requesting to get added to

[3:07:31] the record.

[3:07:32] Does this suffice?

[3:07:34] Certainly.

[3:07:35] Yes.

[3:07:36] Okay.

[3:07:37] So I think are we all in agreement we're not going to open the record,

[3:07:42] Commissioner Smith?

[3:07:47] Okay.

[3:07:48] So I think we can do the readings?

[3:07:50] We need a motion.

[3:07:52] We need a motion.

[3:07:52] that we approve second reading.

[3:07:56] Approved the second reading of ordinance number 20-1010-06

[3:08:00] then we'll create a concept plan by

[3:08:13] the development

[3:08:13] for commercial first, those two residential.

[3:08:19] Is there a second?

[3:08:22] Second.

[3:08:24] Okay, ordinance number 20-1006

[3:08:26] and ordinance of the City of Oregon,

[3:08:27] City of Mending the Oregon City Municipal Code,

[3:08:29] that'll 16 Land Division,

[3:08:30] Saddle 17, zoning chapter 17.0602

[3:08:32] Official Zoning Map, the Official Comprehensive Plan

[3:08:34] and Mending Ancillary Documents of the Comprehensive Land Implements that be Recreate

[3:08:37] Growth Concept Plan.

[3:08:39] Commissioner Rachel Laosmith.

[3:08:41] Aye.

[3:08:41] Commissioner Rockiesmith.

[3:08:48] Commissioner Frank O'Donnell.

[3:08:50] Aye.

[3:08:51] Commissioner Denise McGriff.

[3:08:53] Aye.

[3:08:56] Okay.

[3:08:56] Motion passes.

[3:08:59] Do we need to continue 7F?

[3:09:02] 7F.

[3:09:03] I mean, it requires the mayor's appointments, right?

[3:09:05] Correct.

[3:09:06] So I don't think we can do that one tonight.

[3:09:08] Correct.

[3:09:09] Right?

[3:09:10] I'd like to move the consent agenda is

[3:09:17] there a second on the consent agenda racial

[3:09:26] so we can just get it done before

[3:09:27] 10. Oh as a presenting officer I don't think I could second. Yeah, I think we'd have to come from.

[3:09:33] Commissioner Ardonal, Commissioner Smith, you are not interested in improving the consent agenda.

[3:09:45] It's just approval of the minutes. That's the consent agenda. Yeah, I remember sure I'll second. Thank you.

[3:09:54] Well, there's something I want to put on a future agenda, but we can do that in our closing statements.

[3:10:00] Okay. Commissioner Rachel Alsmith. Aye. Commissioner Rocky Smith. Aye. Commissioner Franco Donnell. Aye. Commissioner Denise McGrath. Aye. All right. Communications. If we can get through this, we'll be lucky. Thank you. I can invite Mr. Graham and Mr. Graham. And while he's coming, I just want to let the commission know that I've been working with Patrick Buck, the HR director of the police chief and my staff. We're bringing in

[3:10:30] And the gentleman named Mr. De La Cruz, he's going to start with our internal staff on

[3:10:36] bias training and how to be getting these discussions that we're hearing as it relates

[3:10:41] to racial equality, social injustices.

[3:10:44] So we are beginning that process.

[3:10:45] This will be the second week in July.

[3:10:47] We will have training for our entire police force.

[3:10:51] And then we'll also have training for the entire executive team during that time period.

[3:10:55] And then we'll continue to build from there.

[3:10:56] and then I'll just turn over Mr. Graham for an extremely quickly, quick update.

[3:11:01] Oh yes, okay.

[3:11:03] Well this is an update regarding the Oregon City Business Debt Relief initiative round two.

[3:11:09] And just wanted to give you an update.

[3:11:11] We will be starting this program on July, actually on July the 15th.

[3:11:20] We'll be taking applications.

[3:11:22] But it's important to realize that this program was for both

[3:11:25] for profit and non-profit of businesses.

[3:11:30] And it's a program that will be providing grant funding.

[3:11:34] It'll be $2,500 set for all those who qualify and are eligible

[3:11:41] to receive this kind of funding.

[3:11:43] So we're looking at on Monday, July 6th,

[3:11:47] through July the 10th, Laurie Bell will be going out and talking

[3:11:53] to our minority owned businesses and socially disadvantaged groups about the program from

[3:11:59] July 6th to the 10th. And then applications in Spanish and English will go online for

[3:12:06] public viewing on Monday, July 13th. And then we will start accepting applications on July

[3:12:14] 15th. So, and this program will continue until August the 19th.

[3:12:20] And this is for small businesses with five employees or less right one to five in criteria. We had from before

[3:12:26] Well, someone with the state. Yes, the additions. Yes, the additions

[3:12:31] Perfect. That's it. All right. Any questions for Mr. Graham?

[3:12:35] Go forth give away money

[3:12:37] All right. Thank you

[3:12:40] Commissioners

[3:12:41] Commissioner Donald had something. Yeah, Commissioner Donald. I'll yield all of my time to meet him

[3:12:48] This commission took a flyer at the park place request for crosswalks. It wasn't well thought out

[3:12:55] I would like to put that item back on a regular commission schedule for a more in-depth discussion and

[3:13:02] Review rather than the way we approached it before

[3:13:05] That's all

[3:13:08] Yes, I would agree with that

[3:13:13] Mr. Conkel is looking for consensus from the commission on bringing that item back

[3:13:17] Mr. Smith, I thought we had resolved it but obviously there's a bunch of misinformation

[3:13:27] out there and I have concerns about that misinformation, this representing something

[3:13:32] that the city commission did.

[3:13:34] Right.

[3:13:34] I think that Clarenay needs to be made as far as where the money is coming from even if

[3:13:40] do we even have the funds for the crosswalks?

[3:13:43] We need to clarify and probably help the public works department on where this project falls

[3:13:48] in the work plan and the whole scheme of things, I think the neighborhood obviously would like

[3:13:55] for it to happen very quickly, but we all know that the public works had a full work plan

[3:14:01] and a full agenda and a lot of capital projects planned for this biennium. And so we just need to

[3:14:08] figure out where that's, we did not provide that direction when we tackled the crosswalk situation.

[3:14:14] All right, the mayor's not here, so unless there's no further comment.

[3:14:21] Mr. O'Donnell, your hand is still raised, are you finished?

[3:14:25] I'll just must stuck in place and didn't have enough energy to put it down, so here we go.

[3:14:31] What a long evening, so thanks everybody for sticking it out, I think.

[3:14:38] Thank you, gentlemen.

[3:14:40] Yeah.

[3:14:41] Yeah.

[3:14:42] All right.

[3:14:43] We're adjourned.

[3:14:44] Thank you.

City Commission - REVISED

Agenda

Transcript